DISCLAIMER

I do not publish comments that are left anonymously. I expect people to take responsibility for what they say.

If you comment anonymously, I won't even read it. All comments are sent to my email address prior to publication. When I see that a comment was left by "ANONYMOUS", I delete it without opening it. If you don't care enough to take responsibility for what you say, then I don't care enough to know what it is you've said.

What is always welcome is open discussion in a spirit of mutual respect.

Share It If You Like It

If you read something you like, feel free to share it on fb or twitter or email the link. It helps to spread the word! Thanks.

Sunday, September 21, 2008

4 MORE YEARS?

One of Obama’s arguments, and a new mantra for his supporters is that they don’t want 4 more years of Bush’s legacy, which they think McCain will carry on. My question has become: 4 more years of what?

Let’s look at the economy first.

When President Bush took office in January of 2001, gas prices were $1.42, less than half of what they are now. In January of 2005 when Bush was sworn for his second term, gas prices were $1.71 for a net gain of $0.29 over a 4 year period (a period that included 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq). In September of 2005, gas prices had spiked to $3.00 per gallon. What happened? Hurricanes Katrina and Rita had ravished oil refineries in the gulf coast. By the end of the year, however, gas prices had dropped to $2.30 per gallon. 2006 saw a hug increase in gas prices, which the FTC attributed to oil speculators driving up the cost because of the threat of more hurricanes. In June of 2006, gas prices were once again over $3.00 per gallon. With the threat of hurricanes over, however, gas prices had dropped in October of 2006 to $2.22 per gallon. Gas prices in January of 2007 were $2.28 per gallon. A climb started now. By June of 2007, gas prices were $2.94 per gallon. A climb of $0.66 per gallon in 6 months. In January of 2008, gas prices averaged $3.00 per gallon. By June of 2008, gas prices were $4.00 per gallon on average. I write this on September 21, 2008, and gas prices today are $3.39 per gallon.

Between 2001 and 2006, and despite terror attacks, a war, and natural disasters that are unparalleled in U.S. history, gas prices went up only about $.50 per gallon. Between January 2007 and September 2008, a period of 1 year, 9 months, gas prices have risen nearly $2.00 per gallon. What’s the difference between these two time periods? A democratic congress was elected in late 2006. Why did gas prices see a sharp decline between June and September of this year? President Bush announced that he would lift the executive branch moratorium on offshore drilling and challenged congress to lift their ban on drilling in the coast. Immediately after that announcement and challenge, gas prices started their decline. Do I want 4 more years of controlled gas prices? You bet.

A footnote, the above gas prices are all average gas prices for regular grade gasoline in the Midwest. The numbers would be a little different for the east and west coast.

What about the housing crisis?

Over the last year and a half, we have seen more people lose their homes and major banking and investment firms go bankrupt, get bought out, or get bailed out. Where did this start? In 1994, President Clinton and the democratic congress enacted legislation that allowed the mess to begin. What we are seeing is not so much a fallout from failed Bush administration economic policies, but a tradition of government turning a blind eye to the dealings of greedy CEO’s. It appears that the former CEO of Freddie Mac was warned as early as 2003 that the housing bubble was about to burst. In 2001, the Federal Reserve governor Edward Gramlich issued warnings about sub-prime mortgages. In 2005, a senator stood up and warned congress that if some oversight were not imposed, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae would explode and cause severe economic problems for the taxpayers.

Who was that senator?

John McCain.

Is the current economic crisis Bush’s fault? Yes. Is it all his fault? No. This is something for which both parties are responsible. Both parties need to work on reform of this system.

Do I want 4 more years of bad supervision over Wall Street? Not after the past 20 years have left us in this mess.

But let’s look at the economy overall. A recession is defined by economists as 2 consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. This means that for 6 consecutive months there needs to be a shrinking of the overall American economy. This has not happened. As a matter of fact, from 2001 to 2006, there was unparalleled economic growth in the United States. We had not seen such economic growth in our history. Since 2006, despite increase in fuel prices, the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage industry, and the collapse of major banking firms, there has still been consistent economic growth, although it has slowed. Slowed growth is not negative growth. Slowed growth means it has not been growing as fast as it has in the past. Negative growth means the economy is shrinking. There has been consistent, but slowed, growth of the economy.

What happened in 2006 that caused the slowed growth in the economy? The democrats took control of congress. Do I want 4 more years of decline in growth, until there really is a recession? Nope. That’s why I’m not voting democrat this year.

What about the war in Iraq? Saddam Hussein was not responsible for nor did he participate in any way in the events of 9/11. It was proven that despite what the American intelligence offices believed, he did not have weapons of mass destruction, although it has been discovered that he did have the means of producing them. We attacked Iraq for spurious reasons. I’m not going to argue that.

We are in Iraq, however, and we must deal with the situation. The question for me is: Who has the best judgment to ensure U.S. success in Iraq? John McCain was saying as early as 2004 that the means of fighting the war in Iraq were insufficient. He was calling for a change in U.S. strategy that early. Barak Obama was saying pull out. In 2007, John McCain supported the troop surge. Barak Obama was saying pull out. In 2008, we’ve seen a significant decline in violence, a government in Iraq more prepared for leadership, and a conversion of former anti-American insurgents fighting alongside our soldiers. Barak Obama is saying pull out.

Do I want 4 more years of a winning strategy in Iraq securing national interests? You bet.

What about foreign policy in general? Barak Obama does not know what he’s doing. It’s that simple. While Obama was saying that Iran was a small country that does not pose a significant threat to the U.S., John McCain was warning the administration to be watchful of Russia. This was months before the Russians invaded Georgia.

The bottom line of America’s foreign policy right now is the same bottom line as the American economy: OIL.

As long as the U.S. is dependent on foreign oil, the U.S. is vulnerable in all areas. When gas prices begin to drop, OPEC slows production to drive them back up again. OPEC is centered in the middle east where there is sympathy for those who would attack and kill thousands of innocent civilians, and use children to do so. So what do we need to do?

Drill, drill, drill. This is a short term solution, to be sure, but necessary to end our dependence on foreign oil as soon as possible. While we are drilling and decreasing our need for foreign oil, we pump money into technologies that get us off of our oil dependence altogether. Whose plan is this? John McCain’s.

One last issue that I consider to be more important than any of the others is Pro-Life. John McCain has promised to nominate judges who will not legislate from the bench and who will interpret the constitution according to what is actually written in the document, and not what they believe is “the spirit” of the document. This is very important. If those were the kind of judges on the bench in 1973, Roe v. Wade would have had a very different outcome.

I cannot in good conscience vote for Barak Obama who voted against legislation to provide medical care for infants born alive after botched abortions. Twice. The Born Alive Infants Protection Act would have required that medical assistance be given to infants born alive after abortions that were unsuccessful. The practice had been to take these children, who were alive, and put them in closets, on shelves, or in trash cans while still alive and let them die. That’s not abortion anymore, that’s infanticide. And Barak Obama supports it.

Anyway, I know there are as many opinions as there are people, but what I’ve presented are facts that are there for the finding. My opinion, formed by these facts, is pretty obvious. I’m voting for McCain/Palin.

4 more years? I'm hoping for 8.

1 comment:

  1. Jennifer Perry8:52 PM

    It appears that your blog is dead. How are you and the family doing? I'd love to see some recent pics of your little one!

    ReplyDelete