Response to "What I Think"

Jason,
I do not agree that SUV's and trucks do not sell. Even when gas was four dollars, do you know what the highest selling vehicle in America was? It was not a Toyota. It was a Ford truck, the F-150.
And to your point that other companies are more deserving of the money, aren't all companies that ask for bailout money flawed anyway? The banks and other financial institutions that are asking for the bailout money do not deserve anything. They have a flawed business planned because they started giving home loans to people who they knew would never pay them off.
Oh, and you know what? The reason the automakers were making SUV's was because that is what the consumer wanted. Back before gas went up, everyone wanted a big car, not because they did not have a choice, but because they wanted a big vehicle.
And the fact that you made these claims without even knowing what you are talking about is disturbing. The auto companies have been working on electric cars and hydrogen powered cars before the price of gas spiked.
And another thing, what SUV's and trucks are you talking about? Their fuel economy is not bad anymore like it once was. Most get over twenty M.P.G., which is better than it once was. The only vehicles that get terrible fuel mileage are the trucks that are so big you have to use a ladder to get in. Those are the ones that the good ol' boys wanted to outdo each other with bigger and bigger trucks.
Will you please wake up and see that the Big Three tried before all of this happened. But I do have to say, the two companies that do not deserve to be bailed out are Chrysler and General Motors because they are not trying to be become profitable. Chrysler was pretty much bankrupt before all of this happened. And GM will not sell off some of the companies that they own to cut down costs. Ford, on the other hand has sold off Aston Martin and Land Rover because these companies were not making Ford money.
Anyway, I think you should look at the facts before you make these statements.

Should we bail them out?

Will our government bail out the Big Three or not? On one hand, I think that the automakers should be bailed out, but on the other, I think that those workers could get jobs for foreign automakers with plants in the US. It is a very sticky issue because there are so many things to take into account. I think that the government should bail out at least GM and Ford. I think this because Chrysler pretty much started going bankrupt at the beginning of last year. The reason the auto companies should get the bailout money is because it would hurt the economy badly. There are estimates that if the auto companies failed that it would cost the economy over three million jobs. That includes the workers who manufacture the cars and for the workers who manufacture the parts that get put into the cars.

On the other hand, every auto company, foreign and domestic, have had huge chunks taken out of their sales. The reason that companies like Toyota are not complaining is that they have U.S. manufacturing plants in places where unions cannot form and be a thorn in the side of the automakers. The good news is, since the dollar is terrible, this is attracting foreign automakers into the country because they can produce their cars cheaper. If the Big Three go down, then there will be a decrease in the number of cars produced, so the foreign automakers will step in, and everyone who lost their jobs could easily find work doing the exact same thing that they did before.

There is also something else that I have noticed. GM and Chrysler say that they will certainly fail if the do not get any money. But Ford is the only one that said that they foresee themselves becoming highly profitable in a few short years. This means that the only company that could repay the $32 billion that they government gives them would be Ford. You do not lend money to someone who is not confident that they will be profitable. GM and Chrysler need to show that they can make a profit and are making changes to get there.

Whatever happens, there will be winners and losers. Either the auto companies win and the government loses, or both win, or both sides lose. It is a very confusing time to be an American because their are so many things that would go wrong no matter what decision is made.

Commentary on "A Continuous War"

I agree that the government has a right to protect our freedoms. But I have to say, this will not be the first time that his country has been involved in a war that seemingly had no end. The Cold War, even though it was not a direct conflict between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., was still a war that no one ever thought would end. Perhaps we are always at war with someone no matter what we do.
A difference between that war and this one is the cause. At least in this war, there was a clear reason to get involved, at least in Afghanistan. 9-11 was the clear cause to the war. In the Cold War, a medley of military and political differences put us at odds with the Russians. The Cold War was one with no clear reason to why it started. Today, the war on terror was a war that started because an enemy of America physically attacked American soil.
And to what was said about that Americans are not sure if 9-11 is the real reason we went to war, I agree. What most people did not understand, or in that case remember, 9-11 was not the first time that radical-Muslim terrorists have attacked America. The World Trade Center was bombed in the early nineties by the same people who would later bring them down. Maybe the reason we did not go to war then is because people wanted to stop the hate that was experienced during the Cold war. We had just ended one massive war, and we did not need another. Although, after that first attack, we did kind of start to fight the enemy. Actually, the US has been attacked by these terrorists in other parts of world, but we never launched a full scale war. 9-11 was a result of the US not caring about a problem until it is too late.
I agree with you that at certain times, the government has to protect us when our interests are in danger. I think that war needs to be avoided, but when the time comes, the American people know that they their government has the power to protect them.

Are we there yet?

Is the election over yet? The presidential election of 2008 is almost over. I think it’s about time. I do not know if I can take anymore of McCain, Obama, and Palin. I do not think that I can listen to all the non-issues. Do we know what McCain and Obama want to do or how they will change the country for the better? Will one of them please answer the questions and not sidestep them. In my opinion, I do not really think that either candidate is qualified or exciting. America today is so inundated by political ads and by all the speeches that do not matter. People in a decade will look back at this election and not know why the things that the candidates and the media said were important. If you ask me, I think that this is one of the least important elections in recent history. Whoever gets elected inherits a bad situation that will make them look even worse the Bush. The candidates do not seem prepared to take on the economy or the war on terror. I foresee dark times ahead for this country, whoever the president may be. People think that a new president will be able to change everything very quickly back to the way things used to be. But even if the future president wants to pass a law, Congress probably will choose to not back him, even if Obama wins and there are Democrats in Congress. The Congress will probably not support the president's ideas because they will know that Obama or McCain have far fetched ideas.I think that the only people who know how to run the country are only those who have actually been president. No one else knows how hard it is to run the country like they do.
One thing that I find disturbing is that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been forgotten. None of the candidates will touch it. In fact, I think that they are relieved that the economy stinks because they do not have to talk about the war. How can the candidates only talk about domestic issues when there is a war going on. It is almost like the war in Iraq is the war that is not happening since no one, even those who could influence change, do not have a clue about the way to get out of the war without making the United States look bad. This is a real issue and I cannot fathom why it is not talked about.
I know one thing. Their is going to be talk about Decision 2012 the second either Obama or McCain win the election.

An Electric Plan

I found an article that is very interesting. Max Shulz wrote about John McCain's plan, if he is elected, to give a money reward to whoever can design new battery technology that is more advanced than we have now. But Shulz says that McCain is hurting himself for not bringing it up and making it an important part of his campaign. Shulz seems to be very knowledgeable when it comes to the subject of prizes for innovation. He brings up two prizes, although they are privately backed, that nonetheless spurred people forward to create something. One of his examples was the X-Prize that gave ten million dollars to whoever made a reusable manned spacecraft. But, as Shulz says, this has not been what is done in Washington. There, winners are picked before a competition is even started. They set goals and reward people regardless if the goals are met or not.
But McCain's plan is different in that it only rewards the first group that develops the new technology. Shulz says that it is different then something like Bush's billion-dollar hydrogen initiative or Clinton's Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, which cost seven billion because these two things did not reward the winner only. McCain had put energy high on his agenda early in his campaign supporting offshore drilling and choosing a VP candidate from an energy rich state. His plan was to give $300 million dollars to the person or group who could develop a smaller, more powerful battery to be used in cars. McCain hurt himself by not making this an issue now.
I personally think that McCain's plan is good because it gives money to the winner only after they accomplished something. New battery technology is a must if we are going to stop buying foreign oil. The batteries would not just help pure electric cars, but they will also be used by hydrogen-powered cars to store the energy that is created. The problem I would see about talking about this plan right at this moment is because the price of a barrel of oil is around $70, so people will probably go back to SUV's instead of hybrids and tiny cars.

Partisan Politics and the Economy

The author of this New York Times article says that the reason that the bailout bill did not pass was that Republicans did not get the right amount of votes. The author says that since the majority of Democrats voted for it, then it cannot be their fault. The blame is also put on the Bush administration whose policies contributed to the financial crisis. The author also says that the Republicans broke step with the current administration for the first time in eight years, and the opinion of the author is that it was not a good thing.

I do not agree with this at all. How is it just the Republicans fault? If the Democrats were more unified, they could have pushed the bill through themselves. They did not need the Republican vote at all. Another reason that they cannot just blame the Republicans is that 98 Democrats voted nay. If just half of those representatives voted for the bailout, then it would have passed. I also think that Pelosi was ill advised to be so partisan in her speech. All that did was make Wall Street get extremely uncomfortable, causing the single largest drop in the market. A point that I do agree with is that on of the reasons the Republicans did not vote is because they think that free-market economics should have limited government regulation, which the author says is impossible because without regulations, the market would crumble.

This article has shown just how partisan the politics of the country is. The Republicans always blame the Democrats, and the Democrats always blame the Republicans.

Who really knows the economy?

Who knows more about how to fix the economy, Obama or McCain? McCain has already said that he would fire Christopher Cox, head of the SEC. Meanwhile, when Obama was asked during a campaign stop about what he would do about the economy, he didn't have a clue about what to say except that he would talk about it later. It is almost like McCain is on top of things and Obama is never there to seize the opportunity of a situation in which he should have a say in; kind of like the Georgia-Russia conflict in which Obama was lounging by the beach in Hawaii and McCain took the opportunity to have the floor to himself. My point is that Obama runs away from situations that he can't just go out and say that he will "change" the country without going into specifics on how to do so. But, I have to say that both candidates are exactly the same when it comes to their responses on whose fault it is. Both McCain and Obama have said that the blame should be placed both on the companies and the American people.

This is in response to an article on Fox News.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/18/mccain-id-fire-sec-chaiman/