Posted in Politics

PWA: Is President’s Promise Too Good To Be True?

(Note: PWA = “Politics with Aardvarki”!)
Today’s topic: Obama vows to halve federal deficit
Today’s article: William Branigin, Obama Vows to Cut Federal Deficit in Half.

Hey there y’all! (Ugh… I can’t believe I just used that expression…) Looks like it’s that time again: politics time on Bri’s Own World!!! (Don’t all cheer at once, jeez.) Anyhoo… the topic of discussion today is the fact that President Obama just today vowed to halve our nation’s deficit by the end of his first term of office (that’s by 2013). And the current deficit is… lemme see [type type type…click…*gasp*]: $10,850,171,797,932.02. and half of that is $5,425,085,898,966.01. So this is what Obama plans to reduce our deficit to by 2013. And that’s a lot of money. (In case nobody noticed that). He plans to reduce this by cutting and trimming costly activities such as the War on Terror, tax cuts for the rich, restructuring health care policies, and taking a second look at a brand new fleet of presidential helicopters costing $400 million apiece.
To me, this seems like a lot of big talk. I’m skeptical to say the least. But I guess I’ll have to reserve my judgment until 2013 before I can decide whether or not this is “all talk and no action.” It seems like if we pull out of Iraq in the near future (which seems like an empty hope), that will contribute a lot to the deficit (it’s cost us about 600 billion so far). And I’m always for retracting those stupid tax cuts. But is this really enough to halve the massive federal deficit by 2013? For now, I am reserving judgment, but am extremely skeptical. And how about you? Is this prospect possible, or is this merely big talk?

Posted in Politics

Politics with Aardvarki

So, Bri (aka Esteemed Webmistress, as Der Hersteller likes to call her) has given me the task of writing a weekly politics blog… on Mondays. And, as I look at my clock and gasp in amazement, it seems that today is, in fact, a Monday and is a perfect time to write my first weekly politics blog. But before I get down to the actual topic, let me first tell you what’s going to be happening (if you don’t really give a crap, skip down to where it says “*start of actual blog*”):
Each week I will write a blog concerning a current political issue. I will take a current article, summarize it, give my view on it, maybe do a little extra research, and ask you (yes, you) to give your views, concerns, and experiences as well. I will try to be current, relevant, and thoughtful, and if you think that I fail in any of these categories, please point that out so that I may rectify these mistakes so as to present a more interesting blog. Well, that about covers it, so here we go:

*start of actual blog*

Today’s topic: Economic Stimulus Package
Article: Paul Kane, “Senate to Vote Today on Stimulus Bill” (url: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/09/AR2009020901020.html)

We sure have been hearing a whole lot about the failing economy lately, but for most of us it hasn’t really hit home, as the area in which we live is pretty much wrapped up in an economic safe-bubble due to the oil industry (which will probably pop with devastating results when the fossil fuels dry up). But for the rest of the country, it is very much a reality. The recently elected President Obama realizes this, and this is why he and the senate have been working laboriously over the last couple weeks on an economic stimulus package that will, if not stop the economic recession from happening (a very unlikely prospect), then at the very least slow its course or make it merely a recession, rather than another great depression.
Today, the senate cleared the path for the final vote in a 61 to 36 vote (barely passing the 60 required votes for the bill to pass due to the only three republicans for the bill). The bill will, if passed in the final vote, provide $838 billion to a wide variety of purposes, including a 15,000 dollar tax credit to home buyers and 3.4 billion dollars in repairs to public parks. These spendings will be tacked on to the $700 billion rescue plan for banks that was passed last fall as well as “$400 billion that must be approved to keep most federal agencies running for the latter half of fiscal 2009 and an undetermined amount from the Federal Reserve to continue shoring up the financial system.” This is the major concern for senate republicans, causing the senate to be nearly divided down the aisle on this issue.
Personally, I think that we really need this, and I think President Obama is right in saying that doing nothing now will just make the situation worse. But some parts of it seem really odd. Like 3.4 billion for public parks? Do we really need to put that much money into parks when our economy is in the dumps? I can see school repairs and construction (which the senate has cut back on compared to the house), but not parks. It’s not that I’m not for beautifulness and whatever, but it just doesn’t seem like it should be on top of the list. Speaking of the list, I really would like to see a list of all the stuff that money is going to an how much, so if someone could find it, that’d be great. So I guess the last question to ask is this: what do you think about the bill? Is it worthwhile or just a waste of dough? Will it slow down our problem or just have as much of an effect as a gnat hitting a windshield? Is the money well placed or would our fiscal resources be better allocated elsewhere? Well, for now at least, this is Aardvarki, signing out.

One last note:
So what does this mean for us? Well, more tax breaks for sure, especially if the senate version passes as apposed to the house, as it includes 110 billion dollars more in tax cuts. And everyone loves tax cuts… I guess. But really the purpose of these tax cuts go to waste if people don’t do what they’re actually supposed to do with them: which is be wasteful. Yep, that’s right. You’ve always heard “save, save, save,” but the fact is, that is what generally causes a recession to get worse. As the economy goes down, people start cutting back on spending, and as that happens, the economy goes down even more because this money isn’t being fed into the free market and is rather being pooled – saved for a rainy day as the days keep getting rainier. So what can you do? I know it’s hard (and I’m not sure if I can even bring myself to do it), but be wasteful. Buy a computer. Buy an iPod. Buy really fancy clothes. Be, in short wasteful. It really doesn’t make a lot of sense – which is why people aren’t doing it. Common sense dictates that when things in general get more expensive, you should start buying less expensive things – in short cutting back on your spending. This may seem good and smart, but you’re just worsening the economy. So when you get your big tax break, go out and spend it on something you don’t need. For reals this time: this is Aardvarki, signing out.

Posted in Politics

And they’re calling Obama inexperienced?

In case you haven’t been following the news, Senator McCain has picked a running mate: Sarah Palin, the Governer of Alaska since 2006. She was also mayor of Wasilla, Alaska for six years previous. She is pro-life, a gun rights advocate, and opposes gay marriage.
I can’t think of anyone worse as a running mate for John McCain. She even said herself that there are many more qualified than her to be picked for vice president. She is as inexperienced as Obama, yet she does nothing to balance McCain except in youth and a few body parts that McCain is lacking. Personally, I think this is great. Really, is there any way this country will elect a McCain/Palin ticket over Obama/Biden? I honestly can’t wait for the VP debate: Biden is going to walk all over her!

Posted in Politics

I don’t need to fall at your feet

So I know that everyone will be talking about this, but we didn’t have a politics blog this week so I’m doing one now.

OMG OBAMA HAS A RUNNING MATE WHEEEEE. My local newspaper dedicated the entire front page to this news, and to “top ten facts about the candidates”. From this article I learned that McCain has a stuffed dancing hamster and Obama’s high school basketball nickname was “O’bomber”. Yeah, I really needed to know that. And haven’t we been a little sensitive about Obama and his religious beliefs for the past couple months? I don’t think learning that he used to be called “O’Bomber” is the best way to get past that… Some people are a bit less open minded than we like to think about.

And the fact that McCain has a dancing hamster is just creepy. And it was NUMBER ONE on the list. Sheesh.

 I’m getting pretty sick of this race. My prediction is that it will lean to McCain. I also predict that Voltaire’s reanimated corpse will make an appearance half way through. Dancing with McCain’s stuffed hamster.

 

 

 

…I’m afraid to go to sleep now that I have that vision in my head.

 

In other news, this is what happens when it’s one in the morning and one of your best friends only lives one house over…

Adventure Captain Pants and Bri. Thaaaat’s right.

Posted in Politics

Running mates for the presidential canidates

Have you been watching the news lately? Have you heard about the picking of a presidential running mates? And why are they taking so long to choose one? Well a running mate is very important to a campaign because depending on who they chose can affect the campaign. Before the civil war running mates would be chosen across the north/south border. This can bring a candidate into better grips with the voters. Example, a man is doing well at getting the upper and middle classes to vote for him but the lower classes can’t connect with him, so he gets a running mate that the lower class can connect more with, and therefore, more people vote for his party because of his running mate.

For example if Obama chooses Clinton as his running mate she will bring the white women that Hilary appealed to and bring Bill Clinton’s great fund raising capability. So who would you chose for Obama or McCain?