There has been much speculation lately in regards to Barack Obama's potential running mate. Who is going to help him win women? Who is going to help him win blue-collar workers? Who is going to help him look more experienced? TV pundits have been throwing around names like crazy; names like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, even Al Gore. All great ideas. Each possible VP candidate has something to offer. I can't help but question one thing. Will one person influence the American People as much as the media seems to think he or she will? I do not think so. That is why Barack Obama must share his plans to fill all of the positions in his cabinet. He must show us that he is going to surround himself with people who are going to be able to work together with him and turn this country around. Naturally, he would have to have one hell of a cabinet. So, after much careful thought, here is a short list of people who absolutely must be part of an Obama Administration.
I know that many voters would love to see Vice-President Clinton. But remember, as much as I like and respect Senator Clinton, she is not always the most uniting person. In fact, I'm sure that many people would not vote for an Obama-Clinton ticket. This is when Senator Obama must ask himself who would pull the most voters. Three words; Vice-President Jesus. Think about it. The religious right is a force to be reckoned with in politics. An Obama-Christ ticket would most likely win a vast majority of that group. And what about the Vice-Presidential debate? There is a very good chance that we may see a McCain-Huckabee ticket. How great would that rebuttal be? "Oh, you were a Baptist preacher? That's very noble. I'm the Son of God." Or, better yet, "Governor Huckabee doesn't want equal rights for gays. I actually support equal rights for gays, seeing as how my Father created them." One more thing. Have you seen the crowds that Obama draws? If Jesus were at each of those rallies, there would be plenty of fish and bread to go around.
Think we're off to a great start? Oh, I'm just getting warmed up! As for other key cabinet positions:
Attorney General Thomas Mesereau; Michael Jackson's attorney. He convinced 12 people that Michael Jackson is normal. He can probably do anything.
Secretary of Labor Kate Gosselen; from the show Jon & Kate Plus 8. She had 8 kids in under 5 years, so she knows more about labor than... ...wait, what's that... ...it's not that kind of labor. Oh. Moving On.
Secretary of Transportation Dale Earnhardt Jr. This will definitely assist with the rural and blue collar vote. My father would vote twice! Expect the speed limit to be in the triple digits within the first 100 days.
Secretary of Defense Rambo. Would you mess with us if you knew this guy was in charge ?
Secretary of Agriculture Oliver Douglass; Green Acres. If you remember, he was a lawyer before he was a farmer. He could also step into the Attorney General role when Michael Jackson gets into trouble.
Secretary of State Charlton Heston. He would help with the NRA vote, seeing as how he was the former president of the organization. Conversely, he may lose the damned dirty ape vote, but that group tends to vote Republican anyway (seeing as how Sean Hannity has been their leader since Dr. Zaius died).
Finally, don't think that there isn't a place for Bill Clinton in an Obama administration. I would strongly urge Senator Obama to create a new cabinet position for the former president. What would his new title be? Secretary of Shenanigans Clinton. I'm not quite sure what exactly this position would entail. It would probably include throwing flaming bags of dog poo at Italy's door and filling Australia's pool with Jell-o.
I can say with absolute certainty that, if Senator Obama follows these recommendations, the democrats will take back the White House. I've tried to get him to listen to reason, but he will not return my calls. I'm giving him 48 hours and then I'm calling Ralph Nader. The ball's in your court, Senator.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Let's Hear it for the Status Quo! Woot!
Below is a letter to the editor that appeared recently in The Cincinnati Enquirer:
ENOUGH OF THIS KIND OF CHANGE
"The theme this year seems to be change. I remember two years ago the Democrats took control of the House and Senate on the same theme.
Let's see what kind of change we got. Gas and fuel prices have doubled. Unemployment has risen. Food prices have soared. We have a housing crisis. Home prices have declined. We have no energy policy, no Social Security fix and no health care solution. But, they are busy questioning athletes about steroid use, the CEOs about making too much money, the oil companies about making too much money and why horses die on race tracks.
Please, no more change. I don't think we can handle much more."
That was an interesting letter, don't you think? In the letter, the author suggests that many of the problems with our economy are the direct result of a Democrat controlled Congress. I respectfully disagree with this and would like briefly to touch upon some of the arguments he made in his letter.
1) “Gas and fuel prices have doubled.”--No doubt gas prices are far too high. In 2006, the last year of the Republican controlled Congress, the national average was $2.58 (www.eia.doe.gov/steo). Currently, our national average is $3.98 (Associated Press). While it is true that the price of gas has gone up 54.3% in the last two years (not actually doubled) it is also true that Exxon Mobil reported an $11.7 billion profit for the last quarter of 2007; the highest quarterly profit earned by ANY United States company EVER in history. Exxon finished 2007 making a profit of $40.61 billion(cnn.com). First quarter of 2008 was their second most profitable quarter in history at $10.9(nytimes.com). Later in the letter, the author suggests that Congress is wasting time “questioning the oil companies about making too much money.” I’m curious as to why the author seems to think that there is absolutely no correlation between record gas prices and record oil company profits. That might be why the Democrats are exploring it. By the way, the soaring food costs mentioned by this author are also a result of rising gas prices. See, if it costs more to transport the food, it is going to cost more to purchase the food. I'm no economist, so I'm going to send Alan Greenspan a quick IM to see if he can confirm that statement. Let's wait one second to see if he responds.
Hmmm...I seem to have received an away message: "Despite decades of expansion, I still dig my wife's supply curve." I don't get it. Moving on.
2) “We have a housing crisis.”--Very true. It makes me very glad that I decided to rent for another year to save money for a down payment! I’m not entirely sure how the blame for this can be laid at the feet of any politician, regardless of party affiliation. The housing crisis is a result of the boom of sub-prime lending (the practice of extending credit to borrowers with credit characteristics that disqualify them from loans at the prime rate). In 2006, approximately 20% of all mortgages were sub-prime. With sub-prime rates generally come adjustable rates. Naturally, the higher the interest rate goes, the higher the payment becomes. Many people become unable to make the payments. Some blame the lenders. Some blame the borrowers. In reality, most analysts see it as a market failure; things were going so well for so long, many lenders tended to approve risky, high-rate adjustable mortgages. Regardless, Democrats and some Republicans in Congress have been working together to try to fix it, but are met with opposition from some fiscal conservatives who believe that the government should not interfere with the problem.
3) “Unemployment has risen”--So far in 2008, the year to date average is 5.1% . It averaged 4.6% in 2007. However, if you take a look back, you’ll find that the last five years we had a Republican controlled Congress (2001-2006) the mean unemployment rate was 5.28%, peaking at 6.3% (June, 2003). If you break down the mean unemployment rate by year, you'll see how this comment is misleading:
2000: 4.0% (Clinton's last year in office)
2001: 4.7%
2002: 5.3%
2003: 5.9%
2004: 5.5%
2005: 5.0%
2006: 4.6%
2007: 4.6% (first year of a Democrat controlled Congress)
2008: 5.1% (thus far)
So, yes, unemployment has risen 1/2 of a percent since the 2006. However, during Bush's first term, during which we still had a Republican controlled Congress, we saw unemployment jump nearly 2%. In fact, if you look at a break down by month, you'll see that our unemployment rate starting growing during Bush's first month in office. In January of 2001, the country had an unemployment rate of 4.2% by December of the same year, it was up to 5.7%. Check out the stats at http://data.bls.gov.
4) “But, they are busy questioning…why horses die on racetracks.”--OK, I was almost ready to concede this as a loss. While the welfare of animals is extremely important, I can understand why some may feel it needs to take a backseat to the economy, the 4,000+ dead soldiers in Iraq, health care, etc. However, I did a little more research on this and I found out that this questioning is being led by both, Rep. Bobby Rush (D. IL) and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R. KY). A Democrat and a Republican. Hmmm…bipartisanship. Let's blame the Democrats anyway. I’ll consider this a draw rather than a loss.
5) “No health care solution.” Remember SCHIP? This would have provided health care to millions of children. What a great start that would have been. Vetoed by Bush. The override failed due to Democrats. And, by Democrats I mean Republicans. Just making sure you were still reading!
6) “No energy policy” --House Resolution 6, Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. An "Act to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purpose." It was sponsored by Nick Rahall (D. WV) and cosponsored by 198 other members of Congress, a majority of whom are Democrats. H.R. 6 was introduced on January 12, 2007, passed the House on January 18, 2007 (264-163), passed the Senate June 21, 2007 (65-27), and was signed by the President on December 19, 2007, thus creating...an energy policy. Of course, many Republicans think an energy policy should consist of three words: "Drill, drill, drill."
Allright, perhaps that was not as brief as I had intended. It is very clear that we are approaching an extremely important election. I strongly urge everyone to become familiar with the issues. Too often, we are all too quick to accept what we are told or what we hear. Many people who read letters like this from the newspaper, or watch cable news shows, or listen to talk radio take everything they hear at face value. Liberal and Conservative. This is a horrible tragedy.
We need to perform our patriotic duty as citizens of this great nation and research the candidates and the issues(REALLY research, not just listen to sound bytes and read chain e-mails).
Remember, our future as a country is far too important to trust others to give us the information we need to make this important decision.
-J.D.H.
ENOUGH OF THIS KIND OF CHANGE
"The theme this year seems to be change. I remember two years ago the Democrats took control of the House and Senate on the same theme.
Let's see what kind of change we got. Gas and fuel prices have doubled. Unemployment has risen. Food prices have soared. We have a housing crisis. Home prices have declined. We have no energy policy, no Social Security fix and no health care solution. But, they are busy questioning athletes about steroid use, the CEOs about making too much money, the oil companies about making too much money and why horses die on race tracks.
Please, no more change. I don't think we can handle much more."
That was an interesting letter, don't you think? In the letter, the author suggests that many of the problems with our economy are the direct result of a Democrat controlled Congress. I respectfully disagree with this and would like briefly to touch upon some of the arguments he made in his letter.
1) “Gas and fuel prices have doubled.”--No doubt gas prices are far too high. In 2006, the last year of the Republican controlled Congress, the national average was $2.58 (www.eia.doe.gov/steo). Currently, our national average is $3.98 (Associated Press). While it is true that the price of gas has gone up 54.3% in the last two years (not actually doubled) it is also true that Exxon Mobil reported an $11.7 billion profit for the last quarter of 2007; the highest quarterly profit earned by ANY United States company EVER in history. Exxon finished 2007 making a profit of $40.61 billion(cnn.com). First quarter of 2008 was their second most profitable quarter in history at $10.9(nytimes.com). Later in the letter, the author suggests that Congress is wasting time “questioning the oil companies about making too much money.” I’m curious as to why the author seems to think that there is absolutely no correlation between record gas prices and record oil company profits. That might be why the Democrats are exploring it. By the way, the soaring food costs mentioned by this author are also a result of rising gas prices. See, if it costs more to transport the food, it is going to cost more to purchase the food. I'm no economist, so I'm going to send Alan Greenspan a quick IM to see if he can confirm that statement. Let's wait one second to see if he responds.
Hmmm...I seem to have received an away message: "Despite decades of expansion, I still dig my wife's supply curve." I don't get it. Moving on.
2) “We have a housing crisis.”--Very true. It makes me very glad that I decided to rent for another year to save money for a down payment! I’m not entirely sure how the blame for this can be laid at the feet of any politician, regardless of party affiliation. The housing crisis is a result of the boom of sub-prime lending (the practice of extending credit to borrowers with credit characteristics that disqualify them from loans at the prime rate). In 2006, approximately 20% of all mortgages were sub-prime. With sub-prime rates generally come adjustable rates. Naturally, the higher the interest rate goes, the higher the payment becomes. Many people become unable to make the payments. Some blame the lenders. Some blame the borrowers. In reality, most analysts see it as a market failure; things were going so well for so long, many lenders tended to approve risky, high-rate adjustable mortgages. Regardless, Democrats and some Republicans in Congress have been working together to try to fix it, but are met with opposition from some fiscal conservatives who believe that the government should not interfere with the problem.
3) “Unemployment has risen”--So far in 2008, the year to date average is 5.1% . It averaged 4.6% in 2007. However, if you take a look back, you’ll find that the last five years we had a Republican controlled Congress (2001-2006) the mean unemployment rate was 5.28%, peaking at 6.3% (June, 2003). If you break down the mean unemployment rate by year, you'll see how this comment is misleading:
2000: 4.0% (Clinton's last year in office)
2001: 4.7%
2002: 5.3%
2003: 5.9%
2004: 5.5%
2005: 5.0%
2006: 4.6%
2007: 4.6% (first year of a Democrat controlled Congress)
2008: 5.1% (thus far)
So, yes, unemployment has risen 1/2 of a percent since the 2006. However, during Bush's first term, during which we still had a Republican controlled Congress, we saw unemployment jump nearly 2%. In fact, if you look at a break down by month, you'll see that our unemployment rate starting growing during Bush's first month in office. In January of 2001, the country had an unemployment rate of 4.2% by December of the same year, it was up to 5.7%. Check out the stats at http://data.bls.gov.
4) “But, they are busy questioning…why horses die on racetracks.”--OK, I was almost ready to concede this as a loss. While the welfare of animals is extremely important, I can understand why some may feel it needs to take a backseat to the economy, the 4,000+ dead soldiers in Iraq, health care, etc. However, I did a little more research on this and I found out that this questioning is being led by both, Rep. Bobby Rush (D. IL) and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R. KY). A Democrat and a Republican. Hmmm…bipartisanship. Let's blame the Democrats anyway. I’ll consider this a draw rather than a loss.
5) “No health care solution.” Remember SCHIP? This would have provided health care to millions of children. What a great start that would have been. Vetoed by Bush. The override failed due to Democrats. And, by Democrats I mean Republicans. Just making sure you were still reading!
6) “No energy policy” --House Resolution 6, Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. An "Act to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purpose." It was sponsored by Nick Rahall (D. WV) and cosponsored by 198 other members of Congress, a majority of whom are Democrats. H.R. 6 was introduced on January 12, 2007, passed the House on January 18, 2007 (264-163), passed the Senate June 21, 2007 (65-27), and was signed by the President on December 19, 2007, thus creating...an energy policy. Of course, many Republicans think an energy policy should consist of three words: "Drill, drill, drill."
Allright, perhaps that was not as brief as I had intended. It is very clear that we are approaching an extremely important election. I strongly urge everyone to become familiar with the issues. Too often, we are all too quick to accept what we are told or what we hear. Many people who read letters like this from the newspaper, or watch cable news shows, or listen to talk radio take everything they hear at face value. Liberal and Conservative. This is a horrible tragedy.
We need to perform our patriotic duty as citizens of this great nation and research the candidates and the issues(REALLY research, not just listen to sound bytes and read chain e-mails).
Remember, our future as a country is far too important to trust others to give us the information we need to make this important decision.
-J.D.H.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
