Detroit, Michigan: the home of Ford and General Motors is virtually bankrupt as of right now. If we recall, in 1929 the worst depression in American history hit and banks, companies, and people were bankrupt. Henry Ford, the founder of Ford motor company experienced the Great Depression and I believe he would think today’s economic situation was essentially the same as in 1929.
There are two main differences of today’s situation; 1) in 1929 it was actually a depression and 2) the government in 1929 and throughout the depression, did not decide to run Ford motor company. As of today, tax payers own 60% of Ford and General Motors because the government believes these companies are too big to fail. With owning 60% of a company one would think that we could get a pretty good deal on cars, or even better yet, we could get an employee discount. However, that is not the way it works. Instead, our wonderful government that likes to tell us what we can and cannot do, decided on this program called cash for clunkers.
Cash for clunkers actually sounds like a pretty good idea. In fact, it was such a popular idea Congress had to vote on extending the program which required putting more money into the system (this program was supposed to last until November 1, 2009 but, the funds have been exhausted both times and it officially ended August 24). So what was this program supposed to do? The main objective of this program was to get people to have faith in the economy again and purchase new cars that are more “fuel efficient.” But wait, you could not trade in any old car, the car needs to qualify and here are some qualifications:
· The vehicle must be less than 25 years old.
· The trade-in vehicle needs to get 18 or less MPG.
· The trade-in vehicle must be scrapped once trade is complete.
These qualifications are not too bad and seem alright (however, doesn’t scrapping a vehicle sound a lot like waste in landfills?). What I have not mentioned yet is this: the dealer will give you $4,500 for the trade-in and if it qualifies, the government will step in and give you an additional $4,500. How can you go wrong with $9,000? This deal seems almost too good to be true, but it actually got people to get do the cash for clunkers program! By this point I am sure that one might wonder why I have a problem with this program.
To explain of why I do not approve 100% for this program I give you several answers. Firstly, the amount of money the government spent on this program, which happened to be our hard earned money that the government has taken away via tax increase. Why should I have to virtually pay for someone else that wants to buy a car!? Secondly, the cash for clunkers did nothing for the economy in the sense of the long-run. For short-term, of course it did because it gave the consumers a little hope in the economy. Next, I do not agree with the government taking over a company. If a company is failing it is obvious that consumers do not have faith in the company, or in the case of the auto industry, American automobiles are not the best therefore people buy foreign cars (not that I agree with buying foreign). Finally, I have to argue against you global warming people with cash for clunkers. If the government was truly concerned or believed in global warming, they would not agree to scrap these “clunkers” because these cars end up sitting in landfills because they are not supposed to be put back out into the market. Can you say hypocrites of no waste.
What I do not understand is that GM is about to launch a new series of cars, like the next model. Well, if there is no more cash for clunkers program, how are people going to afford new cars? But GM is backing up its decision to come out with the next model because they are going to be hiring a few hundred, possibly thousand people to get these newer cars out on the market. Once again, there will be a surplus of cars and they will be just sitting in the dealer’s lot because nobody can afford them. If that happens, once again, GM is going to have to let go of the people they just hired and the general public will be again unhappy. So why is GM going to release these new line of cars when they know down the line consumers will not buy them because they cannot afford them.
You can disagree with my views, which I know many do but if you stop to think about this, how in the world does this stimulate the economy? Where are the promised 750,000 jobs? If the government wants to intrude on everything why not create jobs instead of giving hand-outs? Give people an incentive to work or find a job (granted, I know there are plenty of people out there looking). Obviously promising such a great number of jobs was a bad thing because nobody sees them. This administration is too concerned with making sure Ford and GM don’t fail rather than keeping promises about producing jobs. I would rather see this administration, instead of giving out jobs and money, provide incentives to work. Giving incentives to work in turn stimulates the economy which gives the consumer faith to buy, sell, and trade.
*The bullet points I retrieved from: http://www.cars.gov
Give credit where credit is due!
Monday, August 24, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
But it's PRACTICE!
When athletes are at practice, most work hard. However, there are those athletes who show up to practice to socialize and put forth minimum effort. This does not happen in every sport or with every athlete but when it does, the rest of the team feels the affects of that lazy athlete.
The sport of cross country is unlike any sport out there. Coaches cannot watch over their athletes at all times, unless they are doing a track workout where everyone is at the same spot. Now these cross country coaches give their athletes a great deal of leeway in where they go for runs. On runs, coaches expect the athletes to actually run for the entire practice and not skip out on the workout. Granted there have been numerous times that I chose to wait around and not run until five minutes left of the practice. However, those times were limited and I always felt bad about doing it.
So what is wrong with skipping out on a few runs? In cross country, or any sport for that matter, what you put in, you get out of it. Simply meaning, if you work hard, by the end of the season you should see real improvements. The way I see it, in cross country there tends to be more athletes at practices to socialize and hang out with friends than any other sport. There is nothing wrong with that at all, on teams friendships are bound to happen, you’re a family. When it comes down to it, at practices athletes should forget about their friends on the team for the time and just work hard to better themselves. Coaches may not catch you cheating in the practices but they will find out when it comes to the races or the games.
If you’re an athlete and you are there for the social aspect of the sport keep this in mind: you are only hurting the team in the long run. Cross country is a unique sport and these athletes should not break the trust of their coaches and work hard when coaches are not looking. If you do not want to work hard, then why would you put yourself through the practices and the games/races, the sweat, blood, and tears? Do yourself a favor and quit; better yet, do the team a favor and quit. I know everyone is at different abilities but on a team the athletes should work hard to get better.
The sport of cross country is unlike any sport out there. Coaches cannot watch over their athletes at all times, unless they are doing a track workout where everyone is at the same spot. Now these cross country coaches give their athletes a great deal of leeway in where they go for runs. On runs, coaches expect the athletes to actually run for the entire practice and not skip out on the workout. Granted there have been numerous times that I chose to wait around and not run until five minutes left of the practice. However, those times were limited and I always felt bad about doing it.
So what is wrong with skipping out on a few runs? In cross country, or any sport for that matter, what you put in, you get out of it. Simply meaning, if you work hard, by the end of the season you should see real improvements. The way I see it, in cross country there tends to be more athletes at practices to socialize and hang out with friends than any other sport. There is nothing wrong with that at all, on teams friendships are bound to happen, you’re a family. When it comes down to it, at practices athletes should forget about their friends on the team for the time and just work hard to better themselves. Coaches may not catch you cheating in the practices but they will find out when it comes to the races or the games.
If you’re an athlete and you are there for the social aspect of the sport keep this in mind: you are only hurting the team in the long run. Cross country is a unique sport and these athletes should not break the trust of their coaches and work hard when coaches are not looking. If you do not want to work hard, then why would you put yourself through the practices and the games/races, the sweat, blood, and tears? Do yourself a favor and quit; better yet, do the team a favor and quit. I know everyone is at different abilities but on a team the athletes should work hard to get better.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Are dogs more important than humans? The debate over Michael Vick.
Michael Vick is now a Philadelphia Eagle after being in prison for two years. If you have been living under a rock for the past couple of days, or even the last two years, then I will explain why Vick was in jail. Vick was running an illegal dog fighting ring at some of his properties. Finally, the FBI caught on and what they found was awful, dead dogs everywhere (sorry for the picture with words). Through the legal system, Vick was found guilty and was sentenced for two years in jail. Along with the jail time, he also had to do community service and join animal rights organizations.
The real debate here is should the commissioner of the NFL have reinstated Michael Vick. Personally, I believe that Vick has already served his time through the federal system and has done community service so he should be allowed back into the NFL. There have been plenty of other players that have done far worse things and I will give the names. Marshawn Lynch of the Buffalo Bills last year was part of a hit and run and he ended up speeding away. He only got a slap on the wrist but better yet, a little bit later, in February, he was arrested for a concealed loaded firearm. If there is a guy that should not be reinstated to the NFL Marshawn Lynch should not be. Next is a player from the Browns, Donte Stallworth. Stallworth actually murdered somebody. There has been no legal action, yet, but the commissioner has laid down his law and suspended Stallworth for the season. What the commissioner should have done is suspended him for life and we can only hope the legal system throws him in jail for a long, long time.
There are plenty of players in the league who have done far worse than dog fighting. I am not saying that dog fighting is a good thing, and I am glad that Vick got thrown in jail for his actions, but compared to killing a human, dog fighting is nowhere near as bad. If Vick was not reinstated I would not have cared at all but since people like Lynch did not face any consequences, Vick should be given the same treatment. I hope the fans of the Eagles forget that Vick killed dogs and remember how good of a football player he was. If football fans want to be mad at someone, be mad at guys like Lynch and Stallworth. However, the debate remains open and we will see what will happen with time.
The real debate here is should the commissioner of the NFL have reinstated Michael Vick. Personally, I believe that Vick has already served his time through the federal system and has done community service so he should be allowed back into the NFL. There have been plenty of other players that have done far worse things and I will give the names. Marshawn Lynch of the Buffalo Bills last year was part of a hit and run and he ended up speeding away. He only got a slap on the wrist but better yet, a little bit later, in February, he was arrested for a concealed loaded firearm. If there is a guy that should not be reinstated to the NFL Marshawn Lynch should not be. Next is a player from the Browns, Donte Stallworth. Stallworth actually murdered somebody. There has been no legal action, yet, but the commissioner has laid down his law and suspended Stallworth for the season. What the commissioner should have done is suspended him for life and we can only hope the legal system throws him in jail for a long, long time.
There are plenty of players in the league who have done far worse than dog fighting. I am not saying that dog fighting is a good thing, and I am glad that Vick got thrown in jail for his actions, but compared to killing a human, dog fighting is nowhere near as bad. If Vick was not reinstated I would not have cared at all but since people like Lynch did not face any consequences, Vick should be given the same treatment. I hope the fans of the Eagles forget that Vick killed dogs and remember how good of a football player he was. If football fans want to be mad at someone, be mad at guys like Lynch and Stallworth. However, the debate remains open and we will see what will happen with time.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Getting Deeper in the Red. What the National Health Care Reform will do.
Did you know that in 1919 post WWI, the United States was a creditor nation? That simply means we were loaning money and exporting more than we took in. Did you know that the United States is now a debtor nation? America is in the red; we owe more than we are making and we owe other countries such as China a ton of money for the loans they have supplied.
What has happened to the days that we had money and people weren’t scared? During the 1920’s just before the stock market crashed America was living the good life after the war. Instead of worrying about spending money we wanted countries like France and Great Britain to pay us back for all we did for them during the war. President Coolidge wanted to focus on raising tariffs to make the country even more Pro-American. With the raising the tariffs, taxes were lowered and ridiculous spending was not seen.
President Reagan did the same thing; he ended the Cold War with the Pro-American mentality. Now with President Obama the country is going through an awful recession (not as bad as the recession in 1980) which economists say started back in 2007. Instead of lowering taxes and not spending, which is a proven method, President Obama has spent more money in his first couple of months than any other President has done in the past.
With that being said, the health care issue is the next step in the President’s administration. Many people, around 53% of Americans (so says the AP poll), do not want this health care reform bill as of right now. The reason we see many Independents, some Democrats, and most Republicans turning away from the current health care reform bill is because they are scared it is just mass spending like the stimulus package that has not worked but put the country in more debt. Now before you get mad, stay with me for a bit longer.
Here are several reasons why I am against this certain bill. I am all about patient’s rights and want patients to get the best possible coverage. President Obama has promised that people who have nothing will now be eligible to receive health care coverage, regardless; that is the public option. He has also promised that if you already have health insurance you can either keep what you have or change over to the public option. That seems fair, you can choose between the coverage you already have or, have the public option. People that already have nothing look at this health care reform and it looks pretty good, but to those who already have health insurance this looks a little sketchy.
I will admit that nobody really likes insurance companies anyways, mainly because insurance companies run as a business and we all know how that works. The reason this looks a bit sketchy to some people that already have health insurance is the point that they will have to pay more taxes on it. People do not want their taxes to raise more than they already are but if this bill passes, the people that already have health insurance will have to pay more taxes on this to pay for the nationalized health care. This sucks but that is the only way the national health care will be paid for.
I also have a personal story of why I am not in favor of the health care reform bill. My mother’s cousin’father in-law that lives in Canada. Well he had a life/death situation where he needed surgery. Canada has national health care so there should have been no problem right? Wrong. The doctors told him that he has 14 months to live if he did not get the surgery but he could not get the surgery because the waiting line was 18 months to have the surgery. Now how is someone supposed to wait 18 months when they have 14 months to live? So, Mary’s father in-law came to America and got the surgery done and paid $250,000 for the health care. Now he is going to live the rest of his life, however long it may be, and did not force our country to pay for his bills. So with national health care there is the potential of waiting too long for a serious medical problem.
My final concern is how it will be paid for. Like I have stated before taxes will be the main way it will be paid for. The money that we borrow from other countries will also be a major factor too. This week alone, America will borrow circa $75 billion. When we borrow that much money a week how are we supposed to pay it back? How are we supposed to pay for this health care system? Do we keep on borrowing money or do we tax our citizens more?
These are all questions to ponder and I will leave you with this: when the budget for 2009 comes out in September, it is projected that America will be $2 trillion in debt. We can only hope that our elected officials read and understand what they are actually voting for. It would be nice for a change that the people in Washington thought about the average American.
What has happened to the days that we had money and people weren’t scared? During the 1920’s just before the stock market crashed America was living the good life after the war. Instead of worrying about spending money we wanted countries like France and Great Britain to pay us back for all we did for them during the war. President Coolidge wanted to focus on raising tariffs to make the country even more Pro-American. With the raising the tariffs, taxes were lowered and ridiculous spending was not seen.
President Reagan did the same thing; he ended the Cold War with the Pro-American mentality. Now with President Obama the country is going through an awful recession (not as bad as the recession in 1980) which economists say started back in 2007. Instead of lowering taxes and not spending, which is a proven method, President Obama has spent more money in his first couple of months than any other President has done in the past.
With that being said, the health care issue is the next step in the President’s administration. Many people, around 53% of Americans (so says the AP poll), do not want this health care reform bill as of right now. The reason we see many Independents, some Democrats, and most Republicans turning away from the current health care reform bill is because they are scared it is just mass spending like the stimulus package that has not worked but put the country in more debt. Now before you get mad, stay with me for a bit longer.
Here are several reasons why I am against this certain bill. I am all about patient’s rights and want patients to get the best possible coverage. President Obama has promised that people who have nothing will now be eligible to receive health care coverage, regardless; that is the public option. He has also promised that if you already have health insurance you can either keep what you have or change over to the public option. That seems fair, you can choose between the coverage you already have or, have the public option. People that already have nothing look at this health care reform and it looks pretty good, but to those who already have health insurance this looks a little sketchy.
I will admit that nobody really likes insurance companies anyways, mainly because insurance companies run as a business and we all know how that works. The reason this looks a bit sketchy to some people that already have health insurance is the point that they will have to pay more taxes on it. People do not want their taxes to raise more than they already are but if this bill passes, the people that already have health insurance will have to pay more taxes on this to pay for the nationalized health care. This sucks but that is the only way the national health care will be paid for.
I also have a personal story of why I am not in favor of the health care reform bill. My mother’s cousin’father in-law that lives in Canada. Well he had a life/death situation where he needed surgery. Canada has national health care so there should have been no problem right? Wrong. The doctors told him that he has 14 months to live if he did not get the surgery but he could not get the surgery because the waiting line was 18 months to have the surgery. Now how is someone supposed to wait 18 months when they have 14 months to live? So, Mary’s father in-law came to America and got the surgery done and paid $250,000 for the health care. Now he is going to live the rest of his life, however long it may be, and did not force our country to pay for his bills. So with national health care there is the potential of waiting too long for a serious medical problem.
My final concern is how it will be paid for. Like I have stated before taxes will be the main way it will be paid for. The money that we borrow from other countries will also be a major factor too. This week alone, America will borrow circa $75 billion. When we borrow that much money a week how are we supposed to pay it back? How are we supposed to pay for this health care system? Do we keep on borrowing money or do we tax our citizens more?
These are all questions to ponder and I will leave you with this: when the budget for 2009 comes out in September, it is projected that America will be $2 trillion in debt. We can only hope that our elected officials read and understand what they are actually voting for. It would be nice for a change that the people in Washington thought about the average American.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
A right step for MLB, too bad it was not soon enough.
America’s past time: baseball. It is a game of inches, hand-eye coordination, running 90 feet, and lately, steroids. The big names that everyone knows right now have been accused of taking steroids and found out. Here are a few just in case you are not too familiar: Alex Rodriguez, David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, and so many more. Why do some players get beat up real bad by the media, fans and critics while others get a slap on the wrist? What will happen to these guys when it becomes their turn to get a chance to be Hall of Famers? Will they get in or not? Will there be an asterisk next to their names or nothing at all?
Pete Rose, former player and manager for the Cincinnati Reds has the statistics to be in the Hall of Fame. But because he bet on the game while being the manager, he was banned from baseball; meaning he is not eligible to be enshrined. Is gambling a bad enough crime to ban a player/manager who was simply amazing on his own from the Hall? According to MLB it is, but how can they say that breaking records with the assistance of performance enhancers is not a crime and these players are allowed into the Hall?
Records are made to be broken. In every sport there are incredible records such as Cal Ripken Jr’s. record of most consecutive games played, and Barry Bonds’ home run record*. One thing for sure is Cal’s record will not be broken. But as for the home run record, Barry stole that record from Hank Aaron by using performance enhancers.
As of late, more and more athletes are getting caught using performance enhancers, granted, some of these performance enhancers were not illegal in MLB when they were being used. But why were Manny, Barry, and Sammy pretty beat up by the media when they were found out that they tested positive for performance enhancers? One explanation could be that these guys were supposed to be role models and players that broke/break records fairly. Another explanation (I lean more towards this explanation) could be these guys were already hated players throughout the league by other players, teams and fans.
That still does not justify why A-Rod did not receive the same treatment! A-Roid here is have an amazing season; for example, a walk-off home run in the bottom of the 15th against the Red Sox’s . In 2003, it was reported that A-Rod tested positive for performance enhancers. He came out and apologized for his actions just like all of the other players have and did but that was the end of it. Is it because he is in a Yankee’s uniform that people suddenly forget that he is a cheat!? Last time I checked, everyone deserves the same treatment regardless if what he took was not illegal in 2003, he should be ridiculed the same way. When it comes to Hall of Fame voting he should get the same treatment as the rest of the cheaters. Most likely though, this will not happen because he is a Yankee. I still will not take away his numbers and statistics but there needs to be an asterisk next to his name just like Barry Bonds’ name.
Should these cheaters be allowed into the Hall of Fame? So far none of them have been on the ballot because they have either not been out of the league long enough or they are still playing. Only time will tell if they get in or not. But we as fans need to look at how it is stealing records from the guys who were legit non-cheaters. If MLB decides these guys are allowed in the Hall, I think MLB needs to reinstate Pete Rose because he did not hurt the game.
A lot of the steroid and performance enhancer usage is due to the fact the fans want to see the long ball hit and big guys. Honestly, who likes seeing little guys that weigh 150 pounds only hit line drives and ground balls? Nobody likes that. Most people love seeing the ball fly out of the park and the ball being pitched over 100mph (not that the average person can actually see the ball when it is thrown that fast). I am glad that MLB has taken the right steps to prevent performance enhancing with drugs. Manny was made a great example of what will continue to happen to players if they choose to cheat. The commissioner and the players association are doing a good job on its reforming. It is too bad that records have been broken by cheaters and now it is too late to take those away. The only thing that can be done is an asterisk.
Pete Rose, former player and manager for the Cincinnati Reds has the statistics to be in the Hall of Fame. But because he bet on the game while being the manager, he was banned from baseball; meaning he is not eligible to be enshrined. Is gambling a bad enough crime to ban a player/manager who was simply amazing on his own from the Hall? According to MLB it is, but how can they say that breaking records with the assistance of performance enhancers is not a crime and these players are allowed into the Hall?
Records are made to be broken. In every sport there are incredible records such as Cal Ripken Jr’s. record of most consecutive games played, and Barry Bonds’ home run record*. One thing for sure is Cal’s record will not be broken. But as for the home run record, Barry stole that record from Hank Aaron by using performance enhancers.
As of late, more and more athletes are getting caught using performance enhancers, granted, some of these performance enhancers were not illegal in MLB when they were being used. But why were Manny, Barry, and Sammy pretty beat up by the media when they were found out that they tested positive for performance enhancers? One explanation could be that these guys were supposed to be role models and players that broke/break records fairly. Another explanation (I lean more towards this explanation) could be these guys were already hated players throughout the league by other players, teams and fans.
That still does not justify why A-Rod did not receive the same treatment! A-Roid here is have an amazing season; for example, a walk-off home run in the bottom of the 15th against the Red Sox’s . In 2003, it was reported that A-Rod tested positive for performance enhancers. He came out and apologized for his actions just like all of the other players have and did but that was the end of it. Is it because he is in a Yankee’s uniform that people suddenly forget that he is a cheat!? Last time I checked, everyone deserves the same treatment regardless if what he took was not illegal in 2003, he should be ridiculed the same way. When it comes to Hall of Fame voting he should get the same treatment as the rest of the cheaters. Most likely though, this will not happen because he is a Yankee. I still will not take away his numbers and statistics but there needs to be an asterisk next to his name just like Barry Bonds’ name.
Should these cheaters be allowed into the Hall of Fame? So far none of them have been on the ballot because they have either not been out of the league long enough or they are still playing. Only time will tell if they get in or not. But we as fans need to look at how it is stealing records from the guys who were legit non-cheaters. If MLB decides these guys are allowed in the Hall, I think MLB needs to reinstate Pete Rose because he did not hurt the game.
A lot of the steroid and performance enhancer usage is due to the fact the fans want to see the long ball hit and big guys. Honestly, who likes seeing little guys that weigh 150 pounds only hit line drives and ground balls? Nobody likes that. Most people love seeing the ball fly out of the park and the ball being pitched over 100mph (not that the average person can actually see the ball when it is thrown that fast). I am glad that MLB has taken the right steps to prevent performance enhancing with drugs. Manny was made a great example of what will continue to happen to players if they choose to cheat. The commissioner and the players association are doing a good job on its reforming. It is too bad that records have been broken by cheaters and now it is too late to take those away. The only thing that can be done is an asterisk.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Is the GOP hurting itself?
As the title asks, I would like to really question the GOP. Sometimes in life, people need to accept that they have lost, and in this case, the election. The best thing for this country is to have a two party system for gains in any way. When one side takes over, the other tries it's hardest to bring it down. In 2008, the Democrats did just that; they brought the GOP down and hence Obama was elected.
Now, how does one side bring down the other? The real answer to that is they appeal to the voters. The Obama camp during the election did a great job of appealing to the country and the "undecided" voters. Post-election there have been people in the GOP or even just a voter that have made it real hard on our cause. There are a lot of Obama haters between the voters and leaders in the party but just hating the President is not the way to go.
There are thinghs that should be done and things that should not be done. For example, there has been a lot of alligations of where exactly President Obama was born. Is this a serious issue, not really. It is an issue but as of right now there are bigger fish to fry. What the GOP needs to do instead of attacking personal issues and lowering themselves to the left's standards, the GOP should attack on national issues. Calling Judge Sotomayor a racist is not a good thing to do because it is unattractive to the voters and turns the general public off. Now there needs to be someone in the GOP to step up and attack the national issues just like the Democrats did during the Bush years.
Now here are three big suggestions that I think the GOP should attack along with answers in my view (these are in no particular order). Obviously, there are more but for starters this should work.
1) Bailouts for companies. We live in America and the last time I looked, we live in a Capitalist society. No buisness is too big to fail, therefore these companies that got bailouts from our tax-payer money should give us back our money and fend for themselves.
2) Stimulus package. This package is around $787 billion. Where did all this money come from, tax payers again. Did President Obama promise not to raise taxes? Well how is this stimulus package being paid for? Oh wait, our tax payer money. Next, more than half of this money has not even been spent yet! We have learned that spend spend spend does not work, only tax cuts work!
3) National health car. Nobody is going to say "no" that they do not want free health coverage. What the Democrats do not tell us is that is will not be free, it has to be paid for by someone, and that someone happens to be tax-payers. Look at Canada and Great Britian's health care. It is not working because people that need coverage have to wait a lot longer than needed if they had their own plan. Go ahead and ask someone that lives there if they would rather come to our country for health coverage.
In the first six months of his presidency, President Obama's approval ratings are dropping fast. The GOP needs to act on this not by attacking personal issues but attacking national issues. Once the GOP starts to step up and do this eyes will be opened and the GOP will come back and they should act fast because the 2010 elections are coming up fast. Until the GOP does this, the Democrats will continue to win and attacking personal issues the, the Democrats will only use that to claim that the GOP are crazy radicals. Do not try to win with ideology but win with hard straight facts! Historically, the GOP has not been good at fighting ideologically but they have been rather good at fighting with hard facts.
Now, how does one side bring down the other? The real answer to that is they appeal to the voters. The Obama camp during the election did a great job of appealing to the country and the "undecided" voters. Post-election there have been people in the GOP or even just a voter that have made it real hard on our cause. There are a lot of Obama haters between the voters and leaders in the party but just hating the President is not the way to go.
There are thinghs that should be done and things that should not be done. For example, there has been a lot of alligations of where exactly President Obama was born. Is this a serious issue, not really. It is an issue but as of right now there are bigger fish to fry. What the GOP needs to do instead of attacking personal issues and lowering themselves to the left's standards, the GOP should attack on national issues. Calling Judge Sotomayor a racist is not a good thing to do because it is unattractive to the voters and turns the general public off. Now there needs to be someone in the GOP to step up and attack the national issues just like the Democrats did during the Bush years.
Now here are three big suggestions that I think the GOP should attack along with answers in my view (these are in no particular order). Obviously, there are more but for starters this should work.
1) Bailouts for companies. We live in America and the last time I looked, we live in a Capitalist society. No buisness is too big to fail, therefore these companies that got bailouts from our tax-payer money should give us back our money and fend for themselves.
2) Stimulus package. This package is around $787 billion. Where did all this money come from, tax payers again. Did President Obama promise not to raise taxes? Well how is this stimulus package being paid for? Oh wait, our tax payer money. Next, more than half of this money has not even been spent yet! We have learned that spend spend spend does not work, only tax cuts work!
3) National health car. Nobody is going to say "no" that they do not want free health coverage. What the Democrats do not tell us is that is will not be free, it has to be paid for by someone, and that someone happens to be tax-payers. Look at Canada and Great Britian's health care. It is not working because people that need coverage have to wait a lot longer than needed if they had their own plan. Go ahead and ask someone that lives there if they would rather come to our country for health coverage.
In the first six months of his presidency, President Obama's approval ratings are dropping fast. The GOP needs to act on this not by attacking personal issues but attacking national issues. Once the GOP starts to step up and do this eyes will be opened and the GOP will come back and they should act fast because the 2010 elections are coming up fast. Until the GOP does this, the Democrats will continue to win and attacking personal issues the, the Democrats will only use that to claim that the GOP are crazy radicals. Do not try to win with ideology but win with hard straight facts! Historically, the GOP has not been good at fighting ideologically but they have been rather good at fighting with hard facts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)