It's A Dog Eat Dog World

Ok, the silliness that has gotten started about the whole dog thing between Romney and Obama is starting to get on my nerves.  Yes, in 1983, Mitt Romney took a 650 mile trip with his family to their vacation home.  Yes, their dog was on the roof of the car the whole way, but he was in a carrier that was strapped down and had a windshield to protect the dog from the wind.  Yes the dog got sick during the trip, but it was because he had gotten into some human food that disagreed with him before the trip, not because he was so terrified from being on top of the car.  The dog was used to traveling in that fashion and, if he is like most dogs, he more than enjoyed it.  The fact that people would suggest that this is a valid concern in the upcoming election is just stupid.  The fact that Obama would use this as an attack against Romney is stupid.  Why?  Because there are more important issues to worry about than if some carries their dog in a kennel that is strapped down to the top of their vehicle.

As for this retaliation from the Romney camp about the fact that Obama grew up knowingly eating dog… So what?  Yes Obama knew it was dog when he ate it.  Yes, he was a young man at the time living in Indonesia with his step-father.  Yes, dog is a common dish over there that people eat.  But I must reiterate, once again, that is not an important issue. 

The fact that these two candidates want to attack each over issues dealing with dogs when there are much more important issues at hand is just ridiculous.  I know Obama can’t run on the real issues that plague our nation today because it would just highlight his failures, but he could run against Romney’s plans that he has presented.  It’s not a perfect plan but it would stick to the issues at hand when it comes to his opponent.  As for Romney, he really needs to call Obama out on all the failed policies of his administration that have gotten us to the point that we are at now, highlight the failures and present reasonable solutions to get us to a better place both fiscally and globally. 

Seriously, is too much to ask to our presidential candidates to behave adults and cut out the childish behavior by addressing the serious issues that face out nation in an open and honest fashion?  Is it?

Some Thoughts on the Eventual Republican Nominee

Well, I know it has been a while since my last post and a lot has happened in the political realm, but never fear, I am back for a little bit.  Work has gotten extremely busy for me so I have not had as much time to focus on my novel as I would like, so I have put it on the back burners for now.  This doesn’t mean that I am going to start posting regularly on my blogs once more, because more than likely I am not.  I just don’t really have the time to do that.  I do have the time to really sit down and write blog posts out regularly, much less work on my novel.  When work slows down a bit I can pick the novel back up but till then I think I will stick to sporadic blog posts.  Once I finally finish the novel, I will be back to posting regularly on my blogs while I take a break between books and start focusing on trying to sell them.  But anyway, on to what I was focus on for this post.

It looks like we finally have our Republican nomination even though Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich refuse to drop out of the race.  Technically I guess you could say that we are still in primary season, but look at our “choices”…  We have a choice between the crazy guy, Ron Paul, the career politician that idolizes FDR, Newt Gingrich, and Obama-lite, Mitt Romney.  Not really much of a choice there is it?  Not that there really is a choice left, Romney is so far ahead in having delegates that there really in no way that Gingrich or Paul can catch up.  Romney is going to have this one in the bag and that is mainly due to the people who say “anyone but Obama,” which is a dangerous attitude to have.  It is for that reason that we lost all of the truly good conservative candidates early in the primaries.  The liberal news media saw those candidates as the largest threat to Obama’s presidency and went after them full force to knock them out before they could get any serious ground.  In doing so, the liberal media effectively made the “anybody but Obama,” people say “It’s ok, anybody will be better than what we currently have so let’s not stand by the people that are clearly to best choice, drop them and move on to the next best thing.”  That kind of thinking is what has now saddled us with Mitt Romney, aka Obama-lite.

You may be wondering why I call Romney Obama-lite, well if you will recall from previous posts I referred to Mitt as Obama 2.0.  The reason I call him this is due to how similar he is to Obama in policies when it comes to things like healthcare.  Granted Mitt has publicly stated that government healthcare is a state’s issue not a federal issue but the fact remains that Romneycare was the base that Obamacare was built on.  Due to this I have pretty much determined that regardless of who wins the presidential election, we, as a nation, are screwed.

Really when you think about it, it boils down who do we want to destroy us.  Obama will take us down fast and quick, look at the job he has done so far, and our destruction will insure that the new Communist States of Obamica forms quickly, left hordes of mindless worker drones to fill the gaps left by all the sane people who fled or were killed because they were a little too free thinking.  If you don’t believe that that would happen, do some research and see what happens to educated people and people who won’t conform in communistic states.  Mitt on the other hand will take a softer approach.  Don’t get me wrong, it will be the almost same one that Obama would take, just scaled back, which, would cause it to linger on for quite a time longer then Obama’s would and be devoid of the heavy communistic leanings that Obama would employ which would also make it drag out longer.  The up note of Mitt is, even though he would kill us eventually, if we survive his term, we may survive to get a conservative in office that can fix all the crap either of these two idiots can do to us.

So, in light of Mittens being the only one that I believe we could potentially survive, I have to say this… 

VOTE MITT ROMNEY 2012,

AT LEAST HE’S NOT A COMMIE!!!

Obama's SotU Speech In A Nutshell And Why I am Done With It

I do want to finish Obama’s State of the Union speech, but somehow I think that that isn’t going to happen.  The reason for this is because of several different things.  The first reason being that I didn’t realize how little of the speech I would be able to address per post.  I have done six posts already and only just hit the half way mark on the speech, so in light of that let me sum the whole thing up in a nice and neat little package.  Obama’s SotU speech is basically an unrealistic wish list of what he wants to accomplish no matter how badly it exceeds his authority or goes against the Constitution.  In fact Obama goes so far as to say in it that he feels the problem with the Government as it is… is that there is too much Government.  Normally, I would agree, but the way that he means it is that he feels that 3 branches of government are too much, therefor in his SotU speech he actually asks Congress to turn over their over to the Executive branch , in other words, him.  The one paragraph alone where he says this provides me with enough material for an entire blog post, but, I won’t go into that because that is not the point of this post. 

The fact that it took me six posts to get halfway through his speech is pathetic, not on my part, but on his.  He thinks that we the people are a bunch of ignorant fools who hang on his every word.  His blowhard attitude comes across in his long winded, lie filled, explanation to why he wants to be America’s first dictator. 

Looking back, the way I should have covered his SotU speech was by taking highlights and going over them, but the more I read of it the more I became convinced I needed to go through it word for word.  That was my mistake.  I apologize to those who were reading it and were looking forward to me finishing it. 

The second reason is that there are other things in the news I want to talk about and cover.  As long as I was focusing on Obama’s SotU speech then I was taking my attention away from more current events that I feel are more important than Obama’s narcissistic babbling on about nothing relevant to the real world.

The third reason is that I have started on my second novel.  For those of you that have been following me for a while know that last year I took some time off from posting to write “Shadows of the Western Moon” and for those of you that follow my other blog where I talk about my non-political writings, you will be happy to know that “Tears of the Western Moon” is now in the works.  Once I finish this one I will probably start promoting these books in an effort to sell them to a publisher. 

Also, since I am focusing on my second novel now, my postings will become fewer and further between until the novel is finished.  I will still post here on Political Discourse, I will just be a bit more selective about what I post because I don’t want to waste your time or my time.  Because of that, I am mainly going to try to hit on subjects that deal with the current Presidential and congressional elections, unless Obama does something stupid, which he more than likely will, in which case I will cover that as well.

Anyway, thank you for your time and patience.

Obama's State Of The Union 2012 Part 6

Part 6

“We can also spur energy innovation with new incentives. The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. But there's no reason why Congress shouldn't at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation. So far, you haven't acted. Well tonight, I will. I'm directing my Administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power three million homes. And I'm proud to announce that the Department of Defense, the world's largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history - with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year.”

This whole statement makes me laugh.  I mean, come on, everyone knows that Global Warming, err, that is to say, Climate Change, is a myth that has been propagated by years of falsified data and research.  I am not saying that we shouldn’t try to be good stewards of the planet, but we don’t need to base what we do on lies that have been spread by people who have an agenda to promote their cause by falsifying information.  As for the rest of Obama’s statement here, I just find it funny.  I’ll let you figure out why.

“Of course, the easiest way to save money is to waste less energy. So here's another proposal: Help manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings. Their energy bills will be $100 billion lower over the next decade, and America will have less pollution, more manufacturing, and more jobs for construction workers who need them. Send me a bill that creates these jobs.”

Wow, he is delusional.  Oh well, I guess that is why they call it a wish list.  That is what this entire speech is, a wish list.  It sounds good but you know none of it is feasible nor will it ever get done.

“Building this new energy future should be just one part of a broader agenda to repair America's infrastructure. So much of America needs to be rebuilt. We've got crumbling roads and bridges. A power grid that wastes too much energy. An incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world.”

Actually, our infrastructure is not that bad compared to the rest of the world.  A lot of people like to show pictures of a bridge that collapsed in the central northern US to say we need the Federal Government to invest more in American Infrastructure then they off set it with pictures of brand new bridges built in Germany and China.  What they don’t tell you it the American bridge collapsed when there was an earthquake (something that doesn’t often happen in that region) that was worse than the bridge was designed to withstand.  Meanwhile the Chinese and German bridges are not typical bridges that are seen in those nations.  If you were to take the percentages of bridges that are advanced in design and in good repair compared to the ones that are not, you would see that despite the fact that China and Germany spend 4 times as much money (percentage wise) on infrastructure as the US does, the US is far better off.

“During the Great Depression, America built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. After World War II, we connected our States with a system of highways. Democratic and Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today.

In the next few weeks, I will sign an Executive Order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we're no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.”

How about use all of that money to pay down the debt and let the states worry about their own roads and bridges.  The only money that the Federal money that is needed is for the interstate road way systems, which is already over funded though you wouldn’t know it due to the wasteful spending of the people who run it.  Why not take the existing money and (as Obama puts it) clear some of that red tape away.  I think that then they would find out that they have more than enough money for what is needed. 

“There's never been a better time to build, especially since the construction industry was one of the hardest-hit when the housing bubble burst. Of course, construction workers weren't the only ones hurt. So were millions of innocent Americans who've seen their home values decline. And while Government can't fix the problem on its own, responsible homeowners shouldn't have to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom to get some relief.

That's why I'm sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low interest rates. No more red tape. No more runaround from the banks. A small fee on the largest financial institutions will ensure that it won't add to the deficit, and will give banks that were rescued by taxpayers a chance to repay a deficit of trust.”

This really does sound good, as a homeowner myself that has been effected by the housing decline; I can see the benefit of this.  But, I am hesitant to believe this or to trust that it will truly help.  The reason for this is the money that will fund this has to come from somewhere.  The unfortunate truth is that it is most likely going to be gained by raising taxes or cutting the tax breaks that home owners get.  Either one of these is almost guaranteed to be worse than what we currently have to pay, effectively not saving us, the homeowners, anything.

Let's never forget: Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a Government and a financial system that do the same. It's time to apply the same rules from top to bottom: No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody.

“We've all paid the price for lenders who sold mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, and buyers who knew they couldn't afford them. That's why we need smart regulations to prevent irresponsible behavior. Rules to prevent financial fraud, or toxic dumping, or faulty medical devices, don't destroy the free market. They make the free market work better.”

What Obama is saying here is true, but it is also misleading.  Rules and regulations do help the free market to work better, but only when they are used in moderation.  The biggest thing that is hurting the free market today is overregulation.  This is the whole reason that we had the trouble that led to the recession and the housing market collapse.  When you overregulate, things either can’t get done that need to get done or the multitude of rules gets abused by playing the rules against themselves.

“There is no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary, or too costly. In fact, I've approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his. I've ordered every federal agency to eliminate rules that don't make sense. We've already announced over 500 reforms, and just a fraction of them will save business and citizens more than $10 billion over the next five years. We got rid of one rule from 40 years ago that could have forced some dairy farmers to spend $10,000 a year proving that they could contain a spill - because milk was somehow classified as an oil. With a rule like that, I guess it was worth crying over spilled milk.” 

Actually, over all, Obama has approved passed more regulations in his first 3 years then Bush did in his 8.  As for his administration reforming regulations that are out dated, Obama has shown in the past that he isn’t really interested in true reform of these regulations; he wants to expand upon them.  If, he is telling the truth (and I doubt it, though I will admit I don’t know the truth about this claim.  I cannot find anything to reference his claim) about the rule for dairy farmers that he talks about here, then I say, good for him, but there is so much more that needs to be done.  Also if he is telling the truth, then how many regulations did he impose to offset that rule’s removal?  I bet the answer is more than one.

“I'm confident a farmer can contain a milk spill without a federal agency looking over his shoulder. But I will not back down from making sure an oil company can contain the kind of oil spill we saw in the Gulf two years ago. I will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury pollution, or making sure that our food is safe and our water is clean. I will not go back to the days when health insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny you coverage, or charge women differently from men.”

Ok, where to start… I guess I will start with the gulf oil spill…  Obama, you really dropped the ball on that one.  You took over 90 days to respond to it all the while, blocking all outside help that was trying to lend a hand to help contain and clean it up.  That spill was your Katrina and you just used it to play class warfare politics by taking the opportunity it presented to you.  You used it to shut down a good portion of the industry that refines oil, hurting thousands of families in the process, and to promote your environmental agenda that does not take the US citizen into consideration. You could care less about clean air or clean water, all you care about is if promoting them promotes you and your agenda. 

Also, stop lying about the health insurance companies; I am sick of hearing you tell the same lies about them over and over.  As for the health insurance companies charging more for women over men, (and I know I am going to catch flak for this one, but bear with me) they should charge more.  Women have more expensive testing (and they are tested more often than men) that they need to have done simply because they are women.  Men’s healthcare, in general, is less expensive; therefor they should charge less for men.  It isn’t that men are better than women or vice versa, it’s just that our bodies are made differently therefor testing is done differently and costs differing amounts. 

So on that note Mr. Obama, shut your mouth, you will be more honest that way. 

More in Part 7.

Obama's State Of The Union 2012 Part 5

Part 5

“I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration. That's why my Administration has put more boots on the border than ever before. That's why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office.”

This statement simply is not true, look it up.

“The opponents of action are out of excuses. We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now. But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let's at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country. Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away.”

As I have pointed out before, the Republicans in Congress has been trying to do what Obama is claiming he wants done, but the Dems in the Senate as well as the President himself have been getting in the way of any reforms being passed because it doesn’t match exactly what they think should be in the reforms that have been presented.

“You see, an economy built to last is one where we encourage the talent and ingenuity of every person in this country. That means women should earn equal pay for equal work. It means we should support everyone who's willing to work; and every risk-taker and entrepreneur who aspires to become the next Steve Jobs.”

I agree, too bad our President doesn’t practice that he preaches.

“After all, innovation is what America has always been about. Most new jobs are created in start-ups and small businesses. So let's pass an agenda that helps them succeed. Tear down regulations that prevent aspiring entrepreneurs from getting the financing to grow. Expand tax relief to small businesses that are raising wages and creating good jobs. Both parties agree on these ideas. So put them in a bill, and get it on my desk this year.”

And once again, The Congressional Republicans have been trying to do this repeatedly.

“Innovation also demands basic research. Today, the discoveries taking place in our federally-financed labs and universities could lead to new treatments that kill cancer cells but leave healthy ones untouched. New lightweight vests for cops and soldiers that can stop any bullet. Don't gut these investments in our budget. Don't let other countries win the race for the future. Support the same kind of research and innovation that led to the computer chip and the Internet; to new American jobs and new American industries.”

The President has spent the first 3 years in office blocking things like this because he things that green energy is more important and in that vein he and his administration continue to throw money down a hole that has only proven fruitful in Europe where they subsidize around 90% of the research and costs with only a maximum of about a 50% return on the investment.

“Nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy. Over the last three years, we've opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I'm directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. Right now, American oil production is the highest that it's been in eight years. That's right - eight years. Not only that - last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past sixteen years.”

This statement is so false it isn’t funny.  Obama has done everything he can to prevent and block oil and gas exploration as well restricting the production to an all-time low since the Carter years with Job killing regulations.  If Obama really is serious about opening 75% of our offshore resources, why has he worked toward blocking it when Republicans have been calling for it for this for the last 6 years?

“But with only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, oil isn't enough. This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy - a strategy that's cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.”

*sigh* We have more than 2% of the of the world’s oil reserves.

“We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years, and my Administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. And I'm requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use. America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.”

To Obama: Stop saying you want to do something when you have clearly shown in the past that you do not, seriously, just because it is an election year doesn’t mean that you can forget the last 3 years.  Oh, and while I am thinking about it, the companies that drill for natural gas do disclose the chemicals that they use.  They have to get Government approval in order to use them, you dunderhead.

“The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don't have to choose between our environment and our economy. And by the way, it was public research dollars, over the course of thirty years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock - reminding us that Government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground.”

The funding that Government put toward natural gas research has actually done as much to restrict the methods for getting natural gas as it has helped it.

“What's true for natural gas is true for clean energy. In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world's leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries. Because of federal investments, renewable energy use has nearly doubled. And thousands of Americans have jobs because of it.”

Dirty little secret, there is no truly clean energy.  As much as Obama and environmentalist want to think that there is, there isn’t.  Every form of energy comes with some form of waste and pollutant attached to it.  Yes even the batteries that he is so proud of.  Oh, and the renewable energy market is only thriving because of Government grants.  Without those is would have slipped into nothingness because it is inefficient as an energy source.  Also if you are wondering why I say that there is not clean energy… Think about everything that goes into making clean energy happen.  If you do you will find something that isn’t quite as clean as they would lead you to believe.

“When Bryan Ritterby was laid off from his job making furniture, he said he worried that at 55, no one would give him a second chance. But he found work at Energetx, a wind turbine manufacturer in Michigan. Before the recession, the factory only made luxury yachts. Today, it's hiring workers like Bryan, who said, "I'm proud to be working in the industry of the future."”

Ok, and?

“Our experience with shale gas shows us that the payoffs on these public investments don't always come right away. Some technologies don't pan out; some companies fail. But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy. I will not walk away from workers like Bryan. I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here. We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That's long enough. It's time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that's rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that's never been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits and create these jobs.”

True, investments don’t pay out right away, that is the way of the world, and it is rare that they do.  Also some technologies don’t pan out and some companies do fail… like Solyndra, which Obama knew was going to fail yet gave them half a billion dollars of tax payer money anyway.  They only reason that china and Germany have such seemingly good solar, wind and battery industries is because they pay out the ass to subsidize them and they are slowly being dragged into a hole because of it.  That is why China is starting to invest in oil.  Oil is the only source of energy that has proven profitable all over the world, all other forms of energy fall short in comparison.  I’m not saying that we shouldn’t research these sources of energy, we should and hopefully one day it will pay off, but we need to go about it much wiser then we have because otherwise we are just wasting money that can be better spent.

More in part 6.

Obamas State Of The Union 2012 Part 4

Part 4

“Jackie Bray is a single mom from North Carolina who was laid off from her job as a mechanic. Then Siemens opened a gas turbine factory in Charlotte, and formed a partnership with Central Piedmont Community College. The company helped the college design courses in laser and robotics training. It paid Jackie's tuition, then hired her to help operate their plant.

I want every American looking for work to have the same opportunity as Jackie did. Join me in a national commitment to train two million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job. My Administration has already lined up more companies that want to help. Model partnerships between businesses like Siemens and community colleges in places like Charlotte, Orlando, and Louisville are up and running. Now you need to give more community colleges the resources they need to become community career centers - places that teach people skills that local businesses are looking for right now, from data management to high-tech manufacturing.

And I want to cut through the maze of confusing training programs, so that from now on, people like Jackie have one program, one website, and one place to go for all the information and help they need. It's time to turn our unemployment system into a reemployment system that puts people to work.”

You know, all of this sounds good but there is just one tiny problem with what Obama is saying here, every American already has the same opportunity that this woman named Jackie had.  That is the way the free market works.  If a business wants someone bad enough because they demonstrated that they have something special to bring to that business, then they will go out of their way to hire those individuals and train them.  We don’t need the Government for that.  If Obama wants to help out the smaller businesses that may struggle to afford training people like this then I say fine, but larger companies like Siemens can already afford to do this without government assistance, oh and while I am at it… don’t attach a bunch of strings because then none of the businesses that could use the money would be willing to because it would not be worth it. 

As for the training programs being different, that is because different states require different things.  This boils down to a state issue and the Federal Government needs to keep their hands out of it.  The states reserve the right to set these regulations because of the different circumstances in each state.

“These reforms will help people get jobs that are open today. But to prepare for the jobs of tomorrow, our commitment to skills and education has to start earlier.

For less than one percent of what our Nation spends on education each year, we've convinced nearly every State in the country to raise their standards for teaching and learning - the first time that's happened in a generation.”

Actually, what he is calling raising standards is in truth lowering them.  The reason I say this is class rooms now can only move as fast as the slowest student in them and we have done away with the special education programs that were reserved for the slower and more challenged students in an effort to make them feel better about themselves.  If we want to raise the standards we need to reinstitute the special education programs so that those students that need it will be able to get the education they need while the students that do not require that level of special attention can get the education they need.  With the current system we are holding our brightest students back and they are suffering for it.

“But challenges remain. And we know how to solve them.”

Yes we do, vote Obama out and get rid of the Department of Education.  Turn the education system back over to the states.

“At a time when other countries are doubling down on education, tight budgets have forced States to lay off thousands of teachers. We know a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of a classroom by over $250,000. A great teacher can offer an escape from poverty to the child who dreams beyond his circumstance. Every person in this chamber can point to a teacher who changed the trajectory of their lives. Most teachers work tirelessly, with modest pay, sometimes digging into their own pocket for school supplies - just to make a difference.

Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let's offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. In return, grant schools flexibility: To teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren't helping kids learn.”

Once again I have to say, if Obama really means what he said than you need to turn the education system back over to the states.  Also in order to do what he claims he wants then we seriously need to look at tenure and reform it.  Tenure is one of the reasons that we have teachers that should not be teaching in our schools and the sooner they can be held responsible the sooner thing will be able to improve.  Traditionally, the Dems are against tenure reform because that puts the teachers that try to indoctrinate student toward the liberal agenda at risk.

“We also know that when students aren't allowed to walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. So tonight, I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen.”

I have to disagree with this.  Every student that drops out does it for their own reasons.  Some do it because they know they won’t graduate and that allows them to enter the work force earlier to get valuable experience, others drop out so that they can get their GED and move on to college.  There are numerous reasons that students drop out of high school, some good some bad.  This call to change the way that students can drop out is not a good one because he does not want circumstances taken into consideration.

“When kids do graduate, the most daunting challenge can be the cost of college. At a time when Americans owe more in tuition debt than credit card debt, this Congress needs to stop the interest rates on student loans from doubling in July. Extend the tuition tax credit we started that saves middle-class families thousands of dollars. And give more young people the chance to earn their way through college by doubling the number of work-study jobs in the next five years.”

All of this I actually agree with the President on. 

“Of course, it's not enough for us to increase student aid. We can't just keep subsidizing skyrocketing tuition; we'll run out of money. States also need to do their part, by making higher education a higher priority in their budgets. And colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down. Recently, I spoke with a group of college presidents who've done just that. Some schools re-design courses to help students finish more quickly. Some use better technology. The point is, it's possible. So let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can't stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down. Higher education can't be a luxury - it's an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford.”

And then Obama drops the ball here.  The states do their part; the main thing that is driving tuition costs up is the fact that the Federal Government restricts what can be taught at each university and college.  This makes some schools worth more than others and since those schools are worth more, they charge more because they have to pay more to the professors that they have to hire.  If the universities and colleges were allowed to teach any programs they desired instead of having to conform to what the Government dictates (which they do because they don’t want a lot of competition between universities and colleges on the programs that are taught. 

Can these schools do more to lower costs?  Yes they can and they should, but threatening to take funding away from them if they don’t comply with your will is just wrong.  If this were to happen the more tuitions costs would just go up that much more to make up for what the Government won’t cover.  Higher education is a luxury despite what the President says.  There are plenty of programs out there to help people who cannot afford to pay for it on their own, but the recipient has to earn the right to get that money.  If you can’t afford it and don’t have the drive to do what it takes to get the student loans, scholarships or grants to help you pay for it then you don’t need it.  Everyone has a fair chance at getting a higher education, they just have to want it, but they are not entitled to it.

Also, think of it like this, if everyone went to college and graduated then the value of that education would drop drastically because the job market would be flooded and then you would have a bunch of highly educated people who could not get the jobs that they have been educating themselves for over the course of the last 2 to 4 years (assuming they stop with their bachelor’s degree).  Most of these people would refuse to do any “lesser” jobs because they would think it was beneath them, after all, who wants to flip burgers when you have a degree in engineering of physics? Just saying.

“Let's also remember that hundreds of thousands of talented, hardworking students in this country face another challenge: The fact that they aren't yet American citizens. Many were brought here as small children, are American through and through, yet they live every day with the threat of deportation. Others came more recently, to study business and science and engineering, but as soon as they get their degree, we send them home to invent new products and create new jobs somewhere else.

That doesn't make sense.”

Yes it does.  If they want to stay in the US they can apply for citizenship like any other LEGAL citizen that has immigrated has done.  As for the children, I hate to say that they should be punished for the crimes of their parents but, at least they can still be with their family once they all are sent back to where they came from.  If the parents demonstrate that they have no respect for American laws, and then they should be punished, unfortunately the children are affected too, but the parents should have thought about that before they broke the law.  American children suffer everyday as they are shipped off to foster homes because their parents broke the law, children that are here illegally should not be given any special treatment.  Sure it isn’t their fault, but they are their parent’s responsibility.  If their parents bring them then they should leave with them.  If they want to come back then they should have to do like everyone else and go about it the legal way.  Cases of people seeking asylum are different and should be treated differently.  But we are not currently talking about people seeking asylum in the US. 

If the foreigners that come to the US for whatever reason want to stay then they should have the respect for the nation that they wish to live in and strive for citizenship the proper way.

More in part 5.

Obama's State Of The Union 2012 Part 3

Part 3

“What's happening in Detroit can happen in other industries. It can happen in Cleveland and Pittsburgh and Raleigh. We can't bring back every job that's left our shores. But right now, it's getting more expensive to do business in places like China. Meanwhile, America is more productive. A few weeks ago, the CEO of Master Lock told me that it now makes business sense for him to bring jobs back home. Today, for the first time in fifteen years, Master Lock's unionized plant in Milwaukee is running at full capacity.

So we have a huge opportunity, at this moment, to bring manufacturing back. But we have to seize it. Tonight, my message to business leaders is simple: Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed.”

While it is getting more expensive to do business in places overseas, the reason for that is simple.  The global economy is suffering.  Therefor the costs of doing business anywhere is going up, including here in the US.  Obama wants to know what it will take to bring manufacturing back to the US, that is simple too.  Get rid of him and every politician that thinks like he does when it comes to over regulation, that will bring more jobs back to the US because it will make it easier for manufacturing businesses to do business here in the US.  Also, make the entire US right to work so that unions can’t force people to join them if they want a job.  Unions have been one of the biggest hindrances to the manufacturing market for a long time.  I am not saying to do away with the unions because they can be a good thing when they do what they are supposed to do, but give the hard working Americans a choice whether or not they want to join.

“We should start with our tax code. Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas. Meanwhile, companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and everyone knows it.”

For the record, the Dems are the ones who wrote, promoted and passed the laws that set the system up like this.

“So let's change it. First, if you're a business that wants to outsource jobs, you shouldn't get a tax deduction for doing it. That money should be used to cover moving expenses for companies like Master Lock that decide to bring jobs home.”

I’m all for taking away the tax deductions that he is talking about.  The money that a business saves just from going overseas won’t be affected so they will still go overseas.  But what we should not do is have taxes raised on businesses that choice to operate in a friendlier environment so that the money can then be sent to businesses that chose not to go overseas.

“Second, no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax. And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here.”

American companies pay more than their “fair share” (by the way, I am getting sick of hearing that phrase, it is a stupid thing to say) in taxes.  They still pay taxes when it comes to importing and exporting goods.  We should not be taxing operations in in foreign countries.  The countries that those businesses operate in tax them for what is done there we should not penalize the company for trying to make an extra profit because that does come back home to make more jobs here in the US.  I agree that we should incentivize businesses to stay here in the US, but we don’t need to do it by raising taxes on multinational businesses just so we can subsidize businesses that won’t go overseas.  The business model that a business uses should be based off of where they can get best quality work for the lowest price so that they can them turn around and invest in the economy.  Doing what Obama suggests will kill our import export trade and make the economy even worse.

“Third, if you're an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut. If you're a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making products here. And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers.”

Once again, don’t have much of a problem with what he is saying here but I think he wants to go about it all the wrong way.  As for the subsidizing he is suggesting see my previous comment.

“My message is simple. It's time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America. Send me these tax reforms, and I'll sign them right away.”

But that is not what he is saying; he is saying he wants to punish businesses for going overseas.  As for him signing tax reforms right way… Why hasn’t he or the Senate Dems back any of the tax reforms that are currently sitting in the senate because Harry Reed won’t even let them be brought to the floor?  If you are going to say it Obama, you should at least look like you are trying to what you claim you want to do.

“We're also making it easier for American businesses to sell products all over the world. Two years ago, I set a goal of doubling U.S. exports over five years. With the bipartisan trade agreements I signed into law, we are on track to meet that goal - ahead of schedule. Soon, there will be millions of new customers for American goods in Panama, Columbia, and South Korea. Soon, there will be new cars on the streets of Seoul imported from Detroit, and Toledo, and Chicago.”

That is just a dream as long as Obama and the Dems keep up their policies when it comes to taxation.  The fact of the matter is when it comes to exporting you have to create a friendly environment for businesses here in the US, including the ones that are forced to import due to regulations.  Until you do that, the costs of American products are going to be too high in an overseas market and you will be throwing money down a hole while trying to succeed, especially since most other nations see our good as inferior with the exception of our food exports.

“I will go anywhere in the world to open new markets for American products. And I will not stand by when our competitors don't play by the rules. We've brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration - and it's made a difference. Over a thousand Americans are working today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires. But we need to do more. It's not right when another country lets our movies, music, and software be pirated. It's not fair when foreign manufacturers have a leg up on ours only because they're heavily subsidized.”

This statement makes me laugh.  Obama knows that he only goes all over the world to take vacations.  As for bringing cases against our competitors in other nations, so what, the fact of the matter is if China or Russia are going to abuse the rules then that is what they will do.  Obama and his administration can’t stop that.  Their bringing cases against foreign imports has not created jobs, it has just raised the cost on those imports that has actually hurt production in the US.  The only reason that unemployment is starting to drop is because despite what his administration has done the American market is strong and will recover, just at a slower rate. 

By the way, did you notice the little nod toward SOPA and PIPA?  For more on that you can read my post about those two bills. 

As for the last part of this statement, the reason that foreign manufacturers have a leg up on us isn’t subsidies, it is the fact that labor is significantly cheaper, which is one of the things that is killing manufacturing here.  There are some companies here in the US that, due to unions, have to pay their lowest paid workers a minimum of $25 an hour plus provide a complete benefits package.  If these manufacturers were allowed to either cut wages or make the work pay for part of their benefits then they would have an easier time competing worldwide.

“Tonight, I'm announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China. There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders. And this Congress should make sure that no foreign company has an advantage over American manufacturing when it comes to accessing finance or new markets like Russia. Our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you - America will always win.”

Umm, we have laws and departments in the government that already do this why do we need another?  Make the ones that are supposed to be handling this do their job of get rid of them.  As for what Obama is saying Congress should do, they have been trying to accomplish that but Obama and the Senate have been stonewalling them. 

“I also hear from many business leaders who want to hire in the United States but can't find workers with the right skills. Growing industries in science and technology have twice as many openings as we have workers who can do the job. Think about that - openings at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work.

That's inexcusable. And we know how to fix it.”

Once again, yes we do.  Get rid of Obama and elect someone who cares about America.  The main issue when it comes down  to this is education.  We need to turn education back over to the states instead of dragging all states down to the lowest common denominator.  The Department of Education has done more to hurt education in this country by introducing programs like “No Child Left Behind” (more like no child gets ahead) which was passed under Bush.  We need to challenge our children in order for them to succeed, but until he stop holding them back until the ones that struggle catch up, that is not going to happen.

More in Part 4.