The average teacher in America earns $46,000 a year in salary. The average American with a college degree earns $57,000 a year in salary. 75% of all Americans will complete high school on time, earning diplomas. According to the PISA International Education rankings, the United States ranks below average in Math and Literature scores. We're supposedly the most technologically, socially, and industrially advanced nations in the world. How long is that supposed to last?
I like starting my little editorials off like this, with statistics. It makes me sound more scholarly.
The first grievance I have is regarding pay scale. We live in a capitalist system where the goal is to earn the most money by the end of the game, apparently. But that's another issue. I'm not hatin' the players, I'm hatin' the game. We have scholarly professors teaching our college students, I understand this. But when 3/4ths of Americans will pass High School with even less actually going to college, is it even worth boasting? Where's the incentive to become a teacher? Why would anyone want to shape the young minds of our nation at such with such a deplorable salary? In all honesty, I applaud those who choose to go into the teaching profession. (Okay, that's a bit strong, not all teachers are good, and some definitely don't deserve applause)
With tuition of colleges nearing $20,000/year on average, it is fiscally irresponsible to go into teaching. The average starting pay for a teacher in America is $25,000 - $30,000. So unless you're already well off or you're lucky enough to find a school that will pay you more, you're going to be in debt fast.
In my opinion, our education system should be a monument to our advances. We're only as strong as our weakest link, and it's abhorrent to think that our weakest link could be our education system. We should have the best of the best of shapers of young minds teaching the next generation. And I don't mean have Bill Gates or Warren Buffett eaching Advanced Econ at Harvard. I mean Bill Gates and Warren Buffett teaching arithmetic or algebra at an inner city elementary school in New York City. I mean Bruce Springsteen teaching music. I mean Colin Powell teaching political science. We need to improve our education system from the ground up.
Furthermore, teachers should be paid more than the average American with a college degree. Much more. $50,000 starting salaries. $150,000 average salaries. We need college students to work their asses off so that they can get a good job working as a high school or middle school teacher. Well, ideally speaking...
I don't think that this is too much to ask for. We are a leading first world nation and our international rankings for education are barely on par with third world nations. And it's a self-perpetuating system. We get better teachers who have more financial incentive to teach, we get more qualified students. We get more people completing high school and going to college. We get more quality teachers, who teach higher quality students.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
On Feminism
Today when someone here's the word 'feminism', they think of a crazy, power hungry, man eating woman that's probably a lesbian. Okay, maybe not the lesbian part, but I think i nailed the other part. Anyway, where did this all begin? Feminists weren't always so chastised. Okay, maybe they were. But they weren't thought of as just plain crazy. The feminist "movement" really started before World War II when hussies would go around wearing skirts that showed their knees and when they decided not to marry. Back in those days, they were called spinsters, but it had the same connotation: whore.
The feminist movement didn't REALLY kick off until the 1950s and '60s with Betty Freidan's Feminine Mystique, Helen Brown's Sex and the Single Girl and Gloria Steinham. Friedan did for Women's rights what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr did for Afro-American rights. She took a moderate approach and advocated for equal rights, emphasizing on the equality of all humans. Friedan wanted women to get out of the role of domesticated house wife and servant to the family and do what they wanted.
Now, if Friedan was to Woman's rights as Martin Luther King Jr was to Afro-American rights, then Helen Brown was Malcolm X. Brown emphasized femininity in a way to use as a weapon against "male overlords". She would go on to revitalize Cosmopolitan magazine (the magazine was actually founded in 1886). She advocated for women to do as men were taught to do at a young age, sow their wild oats and when they're good and ready, to get married.
Gloria Steinham is the founder of today's leading woman's rights organization, National Organization for Women (NOW). In the 1960s, she was most popular for her impassioned speeches, her devout involvement in the fight for women's rights, and her co-founding of the first women's rights oriented magazine, Ms.
Now that you have the background. Where do you think the common perception of feminism came from? No, you're wrong! Unless you guessed Helen Brown. Then you're right. Today, feminism has taken a pejorative connotation which has pretty much eliminated the movement's credibility.
What feminism truly is, is more than woman empowerment and more than equal rights. It's just the right to live. The beginning of the movement came at a time when women were the suburban slaves. They cooked, they cleaned, they loved, and that was it. A woman was allowed to go to college to learn a trade that would enable them to better themselves in cooking, cleaning, and loving. What the movement did to women was open their eyes, remove their shackles and be provided with the basic right to a free life
In today's intellectual world, we must revisit the roots of equality among all humans. We have the progression of Afro-Americans, with Barack Obama and Colin Powell. We have the progression of Homosexual rights, with Sir Ian McKellen and Tom Cruise. Now we must accept the true progression of Woman's rights. Rights that secure integrity among the ranks of women, and rights that are equal to that of men.
The feminist movement didn't REALLY kick off until the 1950s and '60s with Betty Freidan's Feminine Mystique, Helen Brown's Sex and the Single Girl and Gloria Steinham. Friedan did for Women's rights what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr did for Afro-American rights. She took a moderate approach and advocated for equal rights, emphasizing on the equality of all humans. Friedan wanted women to get out of the role of domesticated house wife and servant to the family and do what they wanted.
Now, if Friedan was to Woman's rights as Martin Luther King Jr was to Afro-American rights, then Helen Brown was Malcolm X. Brown emphasized femininity in a way to use as a weapon against "male overlords". She would go on to revitalize Cosmopolitan magazine (the magazine was actually founded in 1886). She advocated for women to do as men were taught to do at a young age, sow their wild oats and when they're good and ready, to get married.
Gloria Steinham is the founder of today's leading woman's rights organization, National Organization for Women (NOW). In the 1960s, she was most popular for her impassioned speeches, her devout involvement in the fight for women's rights, and her co-founding of the first women's rights oriented magazine, Ms.
Now that you have the background. Where do you think the common perception of feminism came from? No, you're wrong! Unless you guessed Helen Brown. Then you're right. Today, feminism has taken a pejorative connotation which has pretty much eliminated the movement's credibility.
What feminism truly is, is more than woman empowerment and more than equal rights. It's just the right to live. The beginning of the movement came at a time when women were the suburban slaves. They cooked, they cleaned, they loved, and that was it. A woman was allowed to go to college to learn a trade that would enable them to better themselves in cooking, cleaning, and loving. What the movement did to women was open their eyes, remove their shackles and be provided with the basic right to a free life
In today's intellectual world, we must revisit the roots of equality among all humans. We have the progression of Afro-Americans, with Barack Obama and Colin Powell. We have the progression of Homosexual rights, with Sir Ian McKellen and Tom Cruise. Now we must accept the true progression of Woman's rights. Rights that secure integrity among the ranks of women, and rights that are equal to that of men.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Can't make the scene, if you ain't got that green
Doesn't that often seem like the case? As Chris Rock said once, "Americans worship money. And we all go to the same church. The Church of ATM." And it's true. Money makes the world go around. Those who don't have it, want it; those who can manage it, spend it; and those who have it, keep it. An interesting economic system we have here. Now, this should be a tight squeeze as I segue our worship of money to our government, so I'll make it blunt.
If I were to label our political paradigm like I'll label this post, it would look like this "Democracy. Incompetent. Aristocratic." Now, hopefully you'll see that my big sell for this post is the last one. Aristocratic. An Aristocracy is a form of government that is ruled by the wealthy class. Now, I know when you think of Aristocracy, you think of nobles and peasants and the middle ages, so don't withdraw and don't become nervous or confused. All it takes is logic. Excluding money gained through fundraising, Barack Obama spent $30 million on his campaign, John McCain spent $33 million, Mitt Romney, who you forgot was running, spent over $800,000, Ralph Nader, for whatever reason that he's still running, spent $300,000.
Now, for the land of opportunity, I don't see much opportunity in a middle class American running for President or even coming close. Note, for all intents and purposes, I know Obama was born into the middle class, and I give him kudos for raising himself to the level that he is today. So, instead, let's treat Obama as the wealthy politician he is, instead of his roots. Let's focus on McCain as the politician he is, and not his nepotismic rise to political power. And let's not focus on Nader, because... well that should be self-explanatory.
So, let's back away from the American Dream and from nepotism. Don't you find it disengenuous to have anyone with a trust fund to comprehend what a middle class or lower class is going through? And you think they do? Then why is the division in classes growing more every year. Politicians have pollsters crunch numbers to find out what us folk are all about. Do they do anything about it? I heard that Dick Cheney uses approval rating polls to wipe his ass.
I'm the average American. I don't know anything about political process. I skim CNN or Fox News and I hear that a bill that I don't understand because of the legal jargon is making its wayward journey through Congress and when it passes it'll do something that I won't hear about. I hear politicians say that they understand what the middle and lower class goes through. Do they pay mortgage? If John McCain's toilet clugs up, he'll pick his second favorite. And if that's being renovated, he'll just go to his third. Why not? He's got seven more if anything goes wrong.
Realistically speaking, I want something to be done about the election process. I want caps on fundraising and out of pocket spending. I want a middle class citizen, making $45,000 a year to be able to run for Congress without having to put his house on another mortgage or have to moonlight at a bar while passing bills during the day.
If I were to label our political paradigm like I'll label this post, it would look like this "Democracy. Incompetent. Aristocratic." Now, hopefully you'll see that my big sell for this post is the last one. Aristocratic. An Aristocracy is a form of government that is ruled by the wealthy class. Now, I know when you think of Aristocracy, you think of nobles and peasants and the middle ages, so don't withdraw and don't become nervous or confused. All it takes is logic. Excluding money gained through fundraising, Barack Obama spent $30 million on his campaign, John McCain spent $33 million, Mitt Romney, who you forgot was running, spent over $800,000, Ralph Nader, for whatever reason that he's still running, spent $300,000.
Now, for the land of opportunity, I don't see much opportunity in a middle class American running for President or even coming close. Note, for all intents and purposes, I know Obama was born into the middle class, and I give him kudos for raising himself to the level that he is today. So, instead, let's treat Obama as the wealthy politician he is, instead of his roots. Let's focus on McCain as the politician he is, and not his nepotismic rise to political power. And let's not focus on Nader, because... well that should be self-explanatory.
So, let's back away from the American Dream and from nepotism. Don't you find it disengenuous to have anyone with a trust fund to comprehend what a middle class or lower class is going through? And you think they do? Then why is the division in classes growing more every year. Politicians have pollsters crunch numbers to find out what us folk are all about. Do they do anything about it? I heard that Dick Cheney uses approval rating polls to wipe his ass.
I'm the average American. I don't know anything about political process. I skim CNN or Fox News and I hear that a bill that I don't understand because of the legal jargon is making its wayward journey through Congress and when it passes it'll do something that I won't hear about. I hear politicians say that they understand what the middle and lower class goes through. Do they pay mortgage? If John McCain's toilet clugs up, he'll pick his second favorite. And if that's being renovated, he'll just go to his third. Why not? He's got seven more if anything goes wrong.
Realistically speaking, I want something to be done about the election process. I want caps on fundraising and out of pocket spending. I want a middle class citizen, making $45,000 a year to be able to run for Congress without having to put his house on another mortgage or have to moonlight at a bar while passing bills during the day.
Monday, December 8, 2008
An informal discussion of Socialism vs Capitalism
This is something that was discussed via an MSN IM discussion. I'll leave the two involved anonymous
Socialism says:
People are against it because they don't understand what it means. They simply believe what their government has told them about it.
Capitalism says:
yeah, well socialism is something that never really got into the press cycle until these past few months. the fact is that nobody wants to give money to something that doesn't directly influence themselves, especially in the wake of our economic struggles. and there's no such thing as altruism in our society
Socialism says:
That's because we live in a capitalist society. It's based upon self-interest. You have to look at it from a point that, if we had a bit of socialism, we probably wouldn't have been in this economic crisis in the first place. Allowing banks to self-regulate and basically allowing a bit of unregulated capitalism is a danger to everyone. That's a part of this war we're having. While we're sitting here paying tax dollars to fuel it, the government is dishing out contracts to private companies to destroy and rebuild Iraq. Bechtel makes bombs to destroy and rebuild. Our tax dollars go to these companies. And what we're seeing is the transfer of the wealth of the middle class to the upper class because of this. And when we're in an economic crisis and don't help each other by using a bit of socialism, people become homeless and poor. Homelessness and poverty will increase the crime rate. In that way, it direct effects you. Capitalism is at fault for our current economic crisis. It creates its own problems and destroys itself. We need to cast off our societies Friedmanite vision. Solely driving for ourselves alone is destructive and evil. It can be changed.
Capitalism says:
i think we do have a slightly socialistic society anyway. After all we do pay taxes that pay for government programs. The fact that we pay taxes at all shows that we don't have a solely capitalistic society. i agree with your view of the self-regulating banks. We are having a seperation of middle and upper classes but that's lent to an inability to regulate taxes and allow upper class... citizens to by-pass the tax laws we have in place. Homelessness and poverty are not something that can be realistically fixed by socialism. What socialism would do is supposedly redistribute the wealth, but you have to look at the source of poverty in itself. We don't need to give people the money, we need to hire contracters to fix the ghetto. That one does lend itself to socialism, the... only problem is that you actually need a competant government to get that done, and based on every country ever, no government has been able to rid itself of poverty and homelessness. And the full circle leading from raising taxes to crime rate semantically speaking is definitely not a direct effect. Crime rate can otherwise be regulated. We've lived in a capitalistic country for 200 years and only 3 times in our history has there been economic struggle. the current problem is not capitalism, its incompetence in our government
Socialism says:
We have a slightly socialistic society, but only because it's necessary. The government could never get away without having social programs. But it isn't an efficient socialistic society. We pay taxes, but our taxes go towards the wrong things. And as for our companies paying taxes, those in Iraq don't. There's a bit of unregulated capitalism there, as we can't do that here. The existence of poverty is due to wealth inequality. There is no poverty if everyone makes the same wage. Homelessness can be aided with tax dollars. If we were to hire contractors to fix the ghetto, it would have to be an extremely regulated process. The rebuilding of New Orleans is an example of this situation, and it is by no means a success. Three times in our history have we had an economic struggle, because we've always had other people to exploit in order to make our own economy prosper.
Capitalism says:
"We pay taxes, but our taxes go towards the wrong things." That statement is a pro-socialist fundamental point as to why we can't have a socialistic government. Our taxes will ALWAYS be spent improperly. Because poor want it to go to rebuilding the ghettos, the middle class want it to go towards something that they actually care about, and the upper class will still find a way to not pay taxes.
Socialism says:
That's the point of wealth redistribution. To end class struggle.
Capitalism says:
"There is no poverty if everyone makes the same wage." That is a very idealistic statement. And it will never happen. A bagger won't earn the same as a garbageman who won't earn the same as a clerk, who won't earn the same as a systems analyst who won't earn the same as a doctor who won't earn the same as a CEO because it requires skill, and skill has to be rewarded
otherwise no one will take the necessary prerequisites to having the skill. another thing that crumbles the foundation of socialism is the fact that people are greedy. if they do more than another, they want more. and i maintain that the incompetence of our government makes socialism an implausible ideal
Socialism says:
People are against it because they don't understand what it means. They simply believe what their government has told them about it.
Capitalism says:
yeah, well socialism is something that never really got into the press cycle until these past few months. the fact is that nobody wants to give money to something that doesn't directly influence themselves, especially in the wake of our economic struggles. and there's no such thing as altruism in our society
Socialism says:
That's because we live in a capitalist society. It's based upon self-interest. You have to look at it from a point that, if we had a bit of socialism, we probably wouldn't have been in this economic crisis in the first place. Allowing banks to self-regulate and basically allowing a bit of unregulated capitalism is a danger to everyone. That's a part of this war we're having. While we're sitting here paying tax dollars to fuel it, the government is dishing out contracts to private companies to destroy and rebuild Iraq. Bechtel makes bombs to destroy and rebuild. Our tax dollars go to these companies. And what we're seeing is the transfer of the wealth of the middle class to the upper class because of this. And when we're in an economic crisis and don't help each other by using a bit of socialism, people become homeless and poor. Homelessness and poverty will increase the crime rate. In that way, it direct effects you. Capitalism is at fault for our current economic crisis. It creates its own problems and destroys itself. We need to cast off our societies Friedmanite vision. Solely driving for ourselves alone is destructive and evil. It can be changed.
Capitalism says:
i think we do have a slightly socialistic society anyway. After all we do pay taxes that pay for government programs. The fact that we pay taxes at all shows that we don't have a solely capitalistic society. i agree with your view of the self-regulating banks. We are having a seperation of middle and upper classes but that's lent to an inability to regulate taxes and allow upper class... citizens to by-pass the tax laws we have in place. Homelessness and poverty are not something that can be realistically fixed by socialism. What socialism would do is supposedly redistribute the wealth, but you have to look at the source of poverty in itself. We don't need to give people the money, we need to hire contracters to fix the ghetto. That one does lend itself to socialism, the... only problem is that you actually need a competant government to get that done, and based on every country ever, no government has been able to rid itself of poverty and homelessness. And the full circle leading from raising taxes to crime rate semantically speaking is definitely not a direct effect. Crime rate can otherwise be regulated. We've lived in a capitalistic country for 200 years and only 3 times in our history has there been economic struggle. the current problem is not capitalism, its incompetence in our government
Socialism says:
We have a slightly socialistic society, but only because it's necessary. The government could never get away without having social programs. But it isn't an efficient socialistic society. We pay taxes, but our taxes go towards the wrong things. And as for our companies paying taxes, those in Iraq don't. There's a bit of unregulated capitalism there, as we can't do that here. The existence of poverty is due to wealth inequality. There is no poverty if everyone makes the same wage. Homelessness can be aided with tax dollars. If we were to hire contractors to fix the ghetto, it would have to be an extremely regulated process. The rebuilding of New Orleans is an example of this situation, and it is by no means a success. Three times in our history have we had an economic struggle, because we've always had other people to exploit in order to make our own economy prosper.
Capitalism says:
"We pay taxes, but our taxes go towards the wrong things." That statement is a pro-socialist fundamental point as to why we can't have a socialistic government. Our taxes will ALWAYS be spent improperly. Because poor want it to go to rebuilding the ghettos, the middle class want it to go towards something that they actually care about, and the upper class will still find a way to not pay taxes.
Socialism says:
That's the point of wealth redistribution. To end class struggle.
Capitalism says:
"There is no poverty if everyone makes the same wage." That is a very idealistic statement. And it will never happen. A bagger won't earn the same as a garbageman who won't earn the same as a clerk, who won't earn the same as a systems analyst who won't earn the same as a doctor who won't earn the same as a CEO because it requires skill, and skill has to be rewarded
otherwise no one will take the necessary prerequisites to having the skill. another thing that crumbles the foundation of socialism is the fact that people are greedy. if they do more than another, they want more. and i maintain that the incompetence of our government makes socialism an implausible ideal
Saturday, December 6, 2008
problems with the electoral college
So, lets do a little intro here, I'm Ali G and I'll be doing some guest posts here every now and again. Today I'm going to discuss something near and dear to my heart, my supreme dislike and disapproval of the electoral college.
Now I know it's popular, especially among those who share my somewhat liberal political views to bash the electoral college just because they can. However, I take serious issue with its existence for several reasons. Number one, it's unnecessary. The electoral college was only established in order to convince the smaller colonies to join the union. It contributes nothing to the democratic process, and in many cases it proves a hindrance to the electoral process. The electoral college actually removes power from the hands of each individual voter and gives it to the bureaucratic machine of the college instead. If a candidate wins a given state's popular vote even by a 1 or 2 percent, the candidate wins ALL of the electoral votes for that state. The populace is misrepresented and their voice mangled.
Think I'm being overly dramatic? Well then, lets look at the most infamous example of the electoral college malfunctioning, the first election one George Walker Bush. In this case, it is widely accepted that Gore won the popular vote, but Bush, as we know, won the election. Now all the blame cannot be laid upon the electoral college, the Supreme Court's poor decision making deserves its share of the blame. However, it is hard to argue that, had we only counted the popular vote and not used the electoral college, George W. Bush would be President.
So the electoral college still isn't a big deal?
Don't worry I'm not ready to shut up yet.
My next issue with the electoral college is that it contributes to the disenfranchisement of American voters. Don't get me wrong, American voters disenfranchise themselves perfectly well without the aid of an outside agency, but the electoral college multiplies that disenfranchisement tenfold. Citizens in "very red" or "very blue" states are less likely to vote since they think their vote won't count since their state's electoral vote has already been decided. Additionally, national candidates, like those for Presidents, don't devote as much time to states whose electoral votes are already virtually decided, devoting all of their time instead to several swing states.
My final point is that the electoral college's winner-takes-all attitude makes it very difficult for third parties to enter government. And, as Jason previously posted on this blog, third parties are often the ones with the most innovative ideas and proposals for governance, and the electoral college provides them with yet another hurdle to jump over in order to gain what every American should have in this country, a political voice.
Now I know it's popular, especially among those who share my somewhat liberal political views to bash the electoral college just because they can. However, I take serious issue with its existence for several reasons. Number one, it's unnecessary. The electoral college was only established in order to convince the smaller colonies to join the union. It contributes nothing to the democratic process, and in many cases it proves a hindrance to the electoral process. The electoral college actually removes power from the hands of each individual voter and gives it to the bureaucratic machine of the college instead. If a candidate wins a given state's popular vote even by a 1 or 2 percent, the candidate wins ALL of the electoral votes for that state. The populace is misrepresented and their voice mangled.
Think I'm being overly dramatic? Well then, lets look at the most infamous example of the electoral college malfunctioning, the first election one George Walker Bush. In this case, it is widely accepted that Gore won the popular vote, but Bush, as we know, won the election. Now all the blame cannot be laid upon the electoral college, the Supreme Court's poor decision making deserves its share of the blame. However, it is hard to argue that, had we only counted the popular vote and not used the electoral college, George W. Bush would be President.
So the electoral college still isn't a big deal?
Don't worry I'm not ready to shut up yet.
My next issue with the electoral college is that it contributes to the disenfranchisement of American voters. Don't get me wrong, American voters disenfranchise themselves perfectly well without the aid of an outside agency, but the electoral college multiplies that disenfranchisement tenfold. Citizens in "very red" or "very blue" states are less likely to vote since they think their vote won't count since their state's electoral vote has already been decided. Additionally, national candidates, like those for Presidents, don't devote as much time to states whose electoral votes are already virtually decided, devoting all of their time instead to several swing states.
My final point is that the electoral college's winner-takes-all attitude makes it very difficult for third parties to enter government. And, as Jason previously posted on this blog, third parties are often the ones with the most innovative ideas and proposals for governance, and the electoral college provides them with yet another hurdle to jump over in order to gain what every American should have in this country, a political voice.
Friday, December 5, 2008
A Common Sense Appeal to Why the Bail-Out is a Bad Idea
For those who do not know about this bail-out, or for those who need a little refresher, the U.S. Government allocated $700 billion to be spent by the Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson however he wanted. I have a problem with this. First, I don't know who Henry Paulson is, and by the media's reaction, they didn't even really know who he was. That's like the President saying, "Trust me, I know a guy". Ideally speaking, we should have faith in our government to choose who does what because they have to know it better than we do. Oh wait, this is a government who hasn't really done a great job for us or themselves anyway.
Also, according to this bailout, "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency". Why do they get away with this? Its the kind of thing that makes me want to go on a Lewis Black-esque rant. I'll ask, where's the accountability if this fails? If the economy continues to fail, will we see $700 billion out the window and have to hold our tongue from asking "where'd it go?"
Now, besides the whole Henry Paulson thing, I have another big problem with this. The key term in this bail-out is that the money was ALLOCATED by the government to many national corporations that are struggling. The problem with allocating is that the people who you give the money to have no accountability towards it. If the money dries out and the businesses and banks are still failing, who do they answer to? The people who gave them the money? Who, then, will the government answer to? Nobody. The government hasn't had to answer to anyone but their tri-fecta of similar interests for decades. (But thats for another day).
However, what you find is this: $32.4 million of the $159 billion of the money given to the banks is being re-invested by the banks to lobby in Washington. Now, logistically speaking, that is a very small percentage, but when you take into account where that $32.4 million can go instead of back to the government, it is just plain disappointing. And it really goes to show you the priorities of these companies. And maybe, just maybe you get a hint of how they got into this trouble to begin with. You can't blame it on the recession. The economy is not a mystical force. It goes up and down because of businesses and consumers. Recessions come about because one of the two previously mentioned aren't holding up their end of the bargain.
I suppose it would be fair to give my own option instead of just bashing the occurring one. What I believe they should have done was loan the money out. First, this forces the businesses to actually own up to their problems and work to solve it so that they pay the money back. And second, the money will be spent concisely to fit the businesses needs. Also, and pretty importantly, this will give the money back to the government with interest. And a business or bank fails again, then maybe it was just its time. Companies go out of business, new ones arise, its a free market, those things are bound to happen.
Also, according to this bailout, "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency". Why do they get away with this? Its the kind of thing that makes me want to go on a Lewis Black-esque rant. I'll ask, where's the accountability if this fails? If the economy continues to fail, will we see $700 billion out the window and have to hold our tongue from asking "where'd it go?"
Now, besides the whole Henry Paulson thing, I have another big problem with this. The key term in this bail-out is that the money was ALLOCATED by the government to many national corporations that are struggling. The problem with allocating is that the people who you give the money to have no accountability towards it. If the money dries out and the businesses and banks are still failing, who do they answer to? The people who gave them the money? Who, then, will the government answer to? Nobody. The government hasn't had to answer to anyone but their tri-fecta of similar interests for decades. (But thats for another day).
However, what you find is this: $32.4 million of the $159 billion of the money given to the banks is being re-invested by the banks to lobby in Washington. Now, logistically speaking, that is a very small percentage, but when you take into account where that $32.4 million can go instead of back to the government, it is just plain disappointing. And it really goes to show you the priorities of these companies. And maybe, just maybe you get a hint of how they got into this trouble to begin with. You can't blame it on the recession. The economy is not a mystical force. It goes up and down because of businesses and consumers. Recessions come about because one of the two previously mentioned aren't holding up their end of the bargain.
I suppose it would be fair to give my own option instead of just bashing the occurring one. What I believe they should have done was loan the money out. First, this forces the businesses to actually own up to their problems and work to solve it so that they pay the money back. And second, the money will be spent concisely to fit the businesses needs. Also, and pretty importantly, this will give the money back to the government with interest. And a business or bank fails again, then maybe it was just its time. Companies go out of business, new ones arise, its a free market, those things are bound to happen.
The Two Party System
So first it must be said that, in my opinion, our federal government needs fundamental reform. This goes beyond any squabbling over the divisive issues of today such as taxes, immigration, or any issue that stakes the Christian Church vs everyone else. Those, I think are actual issues between liberal ideas and conservative ideas. The biggest problem I see with the current government is the two-party system. The only solution, therefore, is to completely abolish it; to see an election where we have more than two people in which half the country has to choose the lesser of two evils.
The problem I have with the two party system is that it creates a vacuum of individual ideals and pigeon-holes not only politicians, but also Americans. For politicians, who knows how many are lost or cut off the national stage because they aren't marketable. If you have a Republican with liberal economic ideas, but conservative social ideas, you aren't going to be funded. The Republican Party isn't going to support putting you on the ticket because you don't fully represent the party. And you're not going to get the same lobby support from oil companies if you have a liberal economic plan.
Furthermore, the American people should be spared the unrelenting duality of the system. At one point throughout the primaries in this past election, I'm sure that the American public would have been sufficiently divided between McCain, Obama, or Clinton. And I may even go as far as to put Romney in there assuming he had more time and assuming Palin stuck on with McCain. We have four candidates here who would've put up a better election than the two we had. Mostly because the general election solidly consisted of McCain contradicting himself and actually wearing down his own buzz words, and all Obama had to do was deflect the questions will holding out his Shield of Hope (that might actually be in D&D).
But that was just a recent example. Theoretically speaking, though, don't you find it logical that the more candidates you have the better chance of you being properly represented. After all, we have become a cynical nation. One in the ever widening middle of the road who has broken away from party loyalty anyway. The Average American falls well within the interquartile range (for those who took Stat in high school or college) in terms of political preference. As Chris Rock once said, "America is a nation in the middle". Though its not really our fault. We live in a society that judges wrong answers harshly, and therefore stifles opinion. Therefore, 1) People are afraid of being wrong, that's why Agnosticism is on the rise, and people aren't willing to become radical about ideas (which is good, anyway), and 2) The American People don't like those who are radical anyway. Look at Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson and anyone at the Democratic Underground. So why should a person step up to the polling booth on November 4th, and decide on a person who's too liberal or too conservative (Note: This is for all elections, not just the Presidential one).
For me, it doesn't make any sense. We've done it since the founding of our nation, even though it isn't even in the Consitutition. We've gone through Federalists, Democratic-Republicans (really?), Whigs, Democrats, Republicans, and yes i'll say it, Greens. The only President to not serve under a political party was George Washington. He was smart, wasn't he?
The problem I have with the two party system is that it creates a vacuum of individual ideals and pigeon-holes not only politicians, but also Americans. For politicians, who knows how many are lost or cut off the national stage because they aren't marketable. If you have a Republican with liberal economic ideas, but conservative social ideas, you aren't going to be funded. The Republican Party isn't going to support putting you on the ticket because you don't fully represent the party. And you're not going to get the same lobby support from oil companies if you have a liberal economic plan.
Furthermore, the American people should be spared the unrelenting duality of the system. At one point throughout the primaries in this past election, I'm sure that the American public would have been sufficiently divided between McCain, Obama, or Clinton. And I may even go as far as to put Romney in there assuming he had more time and assuming Palin stuck on with McCain. We have four candidates here who would've put up a better election than the two we had. Mostly because the general election solidly consisted of McCain contradicting himself and actually wearing down his own buzz words, and all Obama had to do was deflect the questions will holding out his Shield of Hope (that might actually be in D&D).
But that was just a recent example. Theoretically speaking, though, don't you find it logical that the more candidates you have the better chance of you being properly represented. After all, we have become a cynical nation. One in the ever widening middle of the road who has broken away from party loyalty anyway. The Average American falls well within the interquartile range (for those who took Stat in high school or college) in terms of political preference. As Chris Rock once said, "America is a nation in the middle". Though its not really our fault. We live in a society that judges wrong answers harshly, and therefore stifles opinion. Therefore, 1) People are afraid of being wrong, that's why Agnosticism is on the rise, and people aren't willing to become radical about ideas (which is good, anyway), and 2) The American People don't like those who are radical anyway. Look at Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson and anyone at the Democratic Underground. So why should a person step up to the polling booth on November 4th, and decide on a person who's too liberal or too conservative (Note: This is for all elections, not just the Presidential one).
For me, it doesn't make any sense. We've done it since the founding of our nation, even though it isn't even in the Consitutition. We've gone through Federalists, Democratic-Republicans (really?), Whigs, Democrats, Republicans, and yes i'll say it, Greens. The only President to not serve under a political party was George Washington. He was smart, wasn't he?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
