Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Obama Health Care Reform Address to Congress - Transcript
To read a transcript of the address to Congress by President Barack Obama, please click HERE.
If you have any comments, please feel free to share them.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Obama's Back-to-School Speech
Afghanistan The Next Vietnam
The conflict in Afghanistan has proven more difficult to fight recently, even with an increase of American troops. Which has been a cause for conflict among some. For others, they are left wondering whether or not we learned from history, or if we are permitting it to repeat itself.
It is well known that President Barack Obama was in total opposition of the troop surge in Iraq, as well as opposing the republican lead war. Most would agree that it was a war fought along political party lines. Most democrats were against the war in Iraq while republicans were supportive. There is no secret that party officials oppose the other side when it comes to war, unless they are the one leading the effort.
In Vietnam, America was lead to war by a democratic president with opposition coming from the republican party. By the time things began taking a turn for the worst, a republican had taken office and the streets were filled with protesters. They protested everything from the amount of troops that were dying to that it was an unnecessary war.
Either way you look at it, the arguments made a point. There was a large amount of casualties, and it did seem that it was an unnecessary war. Unnecessary in the fact that there seemed to be no true plan. The war wasn't fought with a clear idea as to what the outcome would be. For many, this rings so true today with the ongoing war in Afghanistan.
With things taking course in Afghanistan, it seems that the Vietnam effect is in true form. It also seems that some history seems to be repeating itself along party lines. A war started by a republican administration, and taken over by a democratic administration has proven to be a challenge. In the start, it was obvious there was opposition with entering Afghanistan. However, things changed once the Obama Administration took charge. With a heavy focus on a draw-down of troop levels in Iraq, there was no sign that there would be an increase of troops in Afghanistan. Since the current administration took over, troop levels have doubled in size and there has been an influx of casualties.
The Vietnam effect doesn't stop there. As in the past, the administration has no real objective. There has been no real objective other than to get the elusive Osama bin Laden. Is the objective to place a centralized government into operation? If so, then the effort is useless. History has shown that the Afghan people reject this proposal. They have never had a centralized government like what is practiced in America, and it appears as though they never will.
In the '80's, Russia made a serious attempt to change the way Afghanistan runs itself. As then, things are proving to be more difficult than expected. However, Mikhail Gorbachev, then Russian leader, was accepting to the fact that they would ultimately not win the engagement. Something the Obama administration seems unwilling to accept, defeat.
Gorbachev, and his administration, saw the course and withdrew his troops from a decade of fighting. American troops have been in the region for almost the same time, however they will soon see an infusion of more troops. As in Vietnam, when things seemed against America, efforts were increased. Only to later be withdrawn in haste.
Vietnam was a heavy burden on America that caused a huge political divide. The conflict in Afghanistan seems to be taking the same course. Facing a political divide, and a huge deficit, the war is taking a turn for the worse. Public opinion is not as divided, but the majority is now against the effort. Deficits amount on an already bankrupt nation. Troop levels are on the rise, as well as casualties.
The Obama administration is not willing to accept defeat, at any level. Things could only get worse before they get better. With the majority of the people against the war, and unfavorable poll numbers toward President Obama, many are left questioning what the administration will do next.
It is well known that President Barack Obama was in total opposition of the troop surge in Iraq, as well as opposing the republican lead war. Most would agree that it was a war fought along political party lines. Most democrats were against the war in Iraq while republicans were supportive. There is no secret that party officials oppose the other side when it comes to war, unless they are the one leading the effort.
In Vietnam, America was lead to war by a democratic president with opposition coming from the republican party. By the time things began taking a turn for the worst, a republican had taken office and the streets were filled with protesters. They protested everything from the amount of troops that were dying to that it was an unnecessary war.
Either way you look at it, the arguments made a point. There was a large amount of casualties, and it did seem that it was an unnecessary war. Unnecessary in the fact that there seemed to be no true plan. The war wasn't fought with a clear idea as to what the outcome would be. For many, this rings so true today with the ongoing war in Afghanistan.
With things taking course in Afghanistan, it seems that the Vietnam effect is in true form. It also seems that some history seems to be repeating itself along party lines. A war started by a republican administration, and taken over by a democratic administration has proven to be a challenge. In the start, it was obvious there was opposition with entering Afghanistan. However, things changed once the Obama Administration took charge. With a heavy focus on a draw-down of troop levels in Iraq, there was no sign that there would be an increase of troops in Afghanistan. Since the current administration took over, troop levels have doubled in size and there has been an influx of casualties.
The Vietnam effect doesn't stop there. As in the past, the administration has no real objective. There has been no real objective other than to get the elusive Osama bin Laden. Is the objective to place a centralized government into operation? If so, then the effort is useless. History has shown that the Afghan people reject this proposal. They have never had a centralized government like what is practiced in America, and it appears as though they never will.
In the '80's, Russia made a serious attempt to change the way Afghanistan runs itself. As then, things are proving to be more difficult than expected. However, Mikhail Gorbachev, then Russian leader, was accepting to the fact that they would ultimately not win the engagement. Something the Obama administration seems unwilling to accept, defeat.
Gorbachev, and his administration, saw the course and withdrew his troops from a decade of fighting. American troops have been in the region for almost the same time, however they will soon see an infusion of more troops. As in Vietnam, when things seemed against America, efforts were increased. Only to later be withdrawn in haste.
Vietnam was a heavy burden on America that caused a huge political divide. The conflict in Afghanistan seems to be taking the same course. Facing a political divide, and a huge deficit, the war is taking a turn for the worse. Public opinion is not as divided, but the majority is now against the effort. Deficits amount on an already bankrupt nation. Troop levels are on the rise, as well as casualties.
The Obama administration is not willing to accept defeat, at any level. Things could only get worse before they get better. With the majority of the people against the war, and unfavorable poll numbers toward President Obama, many are left questioning what the administration will do next.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Cybersecurity Act of 2009 a Test in Presidential Power
If it isn't health care reform, it's something else. Now it comes in the form of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, or S.773.
The controversy raised with this is that it gives the President control to shut down the internet if certain emergencies arise. On pages 43-44 of the 51 page bill states:
The controversy raised with this is that it gives the President control to shut down the internet if certain emergencies arise. On pages 43-44 of the 51 page bill states:
"The President - (2)may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;"
Some will see this as a non-issue. Others feel that it is a total violation on their freedoms. Those who seem most bothered by it, feel the President is creating too much power.
However, the President is doing his hardest to stimulate the job market with anything and everything he can get his hands on. Yes, even with the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 he will try to create jobs. On page 41 the bill says:
However, the President is doing his hardest to stimulate the job market with anything and everything he can get his hands on. Yes, even with the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 he will try to create jobs. On page 41 the bill says:
"Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the President, or the President's designee, shall report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology of the feasibility of- (1)creating a market for cybersecurity risk management, including the creation of a system of civil liability and insurance (including government reinsurance)"
One decent thing in the bill overshadowed by the extended power of the President if this passes. While the debate over health care reform is still so rampant, there is great attention that should be paid to the other bills that surface during the debate.
Failure is Instructive
There are few times when someone is able to hit the nail on the head, and at the same time explain something in such a simple way that nearly everyone should understand. That is something Dave Ramsey is very good at.
Recently, Dave Ramsey talked about the instructive power of FAILURE. With that, we will let Dave tell it to you. Please take the next nine or so minutes to hear what he has to say. You will, like many others, find yourself nodding your head yes and at times laughing.
LISTEN HERE
Recently, Dave Ramsey talked about the instructive power of FAILURE. With that, we will let Dave tell it to you. Please take the next nine or so minutes to hear what he has to say. You will, like many others, find yourself nodding your head yes and at times laughing.
LISTEN HERE
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Cash for Appliances and the New Green Agenda
Now that the government run Cash for Clunkers program has ended, the continuing push for the new green agenda will be in the form of a Cash for Appliances program.
While the government touts the cash for clunkers program as a success, with a reported 700,000 new vehicles sold, there seems to be an underlying plan with the Obama administration. A plan seemingly focused on furthering the green agenda, not only by removing thousands of gas-guzzling vehicles, but now with the introduction of removing energy-hogging household appliances.
Help would come in the form of rebates valued from $50-$200 from the Department of Energy that has already been approved for $300 million from the stimulus plan earlier this year. While you will hear that this will only help the economy, it's what they fail to tell you up front.
Those unsuspecting individuals that bought vehicles under the clunker program are only now finding out that their rebate will be taxed as taxable income.
However, the debate over the green agenda raises some concern with people. It's not the fact that everyone wants to waste energy, but more so that the government is stepping in and throwing so much money around. People are realizing the amount of wasteful spending and are getting frustrated.
First, it was the banks. Second, the auto industry. Third, the auto industry again. Billions of hard-working taxpayer money has been tossed at these faltering companies.
Two companies that seem to be doing quite well are the two appliance super-companies, Whirlpool and GE. Whirlpool is the leading company, while General Electric draws unwanted attention pulling them to the number two spot.
Unlike the auto industry, the top two appliance makers are American and look to be the top winners with this new program. Another reason Americans are a little upset with the cash for clunkers program was that American auto makers failed to make the top three autos sold under the program. First and second were filled by Toyota, third was Honda, fourth was Ford, and fifth was Hyundai.
General Motors and Chrysler were the two that could have benefited the most, but failed to make the grade again.
The positive side the the clunker program is that it did spawn traffic to dealerships, but there is fear surrounding dealers that the little traffic they do have will become stagnant. A similar feeling could be faced by appliance stores at the end this new program, and quite possibly before it even gets going.
Some are quick to see that some things are too good to be true, while others are slower at noticing.
While the government touts the cash for clunkers program as a success, with a reported 700,000 new vehicles sold, there seems to be an underlying plan with the Obama administration. A plan seemingly focused on furthering the green agenda, not only by removing thousands of gas-guzzling vehicles, but now with the introduction of removing energy-hogging household appliances.
Help would come in the form of rebates valued from $50-$200 from the Department of Energy that has already been approved for $300 million from the stimulus plan earlier this year. While you will hear that this will only help the economy, it's what they fail to tell you up front.
Those unsuspecting individuals that bought vehicles under the clunker program are only now finding out that their rebate will be taxed as taxable income.
However, the debate over the green agenda raises some concern with people. It's not the fact that everyone wants to waste energy, but more so that the government is stepping in and throwing so much money around. People are realizing the amount of wasteful spending and are getting frustrated.
First, it was the banks. Second, the auto industry. Third, the auto industry again. Billions of hard-working taxpayer money has been tossed at these faltering companies.
Two companies that seem to be doing quite well are the two appliance super-companies, Whirlpool and GE. Whirlpool is the leading company, while General Electric draws unwanted attention pulling them to the number two spot.
Unlike the auto industry, the top two appliance makers are American and look to be the top winners with this new program. Another reason Americans are a little upset with the cash for clunkers program was that American auto makers failed to make the top three autos sold under the program. First and second were filled by Toyota, third was Honda, fourth was Ford, and fifth was Hyundai.
General Motors and Chrysler were the two that could have benefited the most, but failed to make the grade again.
The positive side the the clunker program is that it did spawn traffic to dealerships, but there is fear surrounding dealers that the little traffic they do have will become stagnant. A similar feeling could be faced by appliance stores at the end this new program, and quite possibly before it even gets going.
Some are quick to see that some things are too good to be true, while others are slower at noticing.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Nation Mournes at Passing of Ted Kennedy
Massachusetts longtime Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy has passed away at the age of 77 after battling a brain tumor.
For more coverage:
Remembering Ted Kennedy
Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy Dies After Cancer Battle
A statement from the Kennedy family:
"We thank everyone who gave him care and support over this last year, and everyone who stood with him for so many years in his tireless march for progress toward justice, fairness and opportunity for all."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
