Nov 18, 2008 | 8:31 AM
Category:
News
Germany finished paying off World War II reconstruction loans in 1971. Additionally Germany and its industries were largely dismantled and taken over by the allies. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_plans_for_Germ
any).
Should Iraq be forced to pay back the money that has been spent by the U.S. for the reconstruction of their country?
How about their industries, including, but not limited to the oil industry............ should the U.S. take over those industries and at least share in their profits until all of the reconstruction and occupation costs have been repaid?
Nov 15, 2008 | 2:38 PM
Category:
News
During President Bush's address to the leaders of the 20 major economic nations, he suggested that more regulations are needed for our financial institutions and the regulatory structure/process needs to be improved in order to avoid another economic crisis like the one that we are experiencing.
It sounds much like the President is giving advice that he and his administration have yet to follow. In fact it flies in the face of the President's long held notion that less regulation is the best way to go.
Should the administration be focusing on the development of a stricter and more effective means for regulatory oversight instead of giving away tax payer monies with few if any conditions?
Nov 12, 2008 | 9:21 AM
Category:
News
Unemployment is going up and working conditions are getting tougher.
However, the CEO of AIG, Edward Liddy still has his job even after leading it near financial disaster and needing a bail-out of about $150 billion. And others in line for taxpayer bail-outs such as the major American auto makers, bankers, etc. all intend to keep their top management in place even though they have led them to near ruin.
Makes you wonder doesn't it? Top management can get rid of the average worker in a heartbeat, but yet they can nearly ruin their respective company and then have the nerve to ask for money to be provided by those same "average workers" in order to save them.
So how are the most ineffective and inefficient managers and executives able to retain their jobs and even enjoy more perks after receiving government bail-out money?
They don't have a union that makes it too difficult to fire them do they?
How about those Corporate Boards that are supposed to keep such things from happening?
Nov 7, 2008 | 9:22 AM
Category:
News
According to the Associated Press, the government reported that 1.2 million jobs have been lost this year so far and unemployment is at a 14 year high. It is now at about 6.5 percent and is expected to reach 8 percent next year.
Most of the jobs that are disappearing are factory and other good paying middle class jobs. Will the good paying jobs that are being lost ever return to the U.S. or is the standard of living for many middle class Americans being lowered forever?
Oct 30, 2008 | 6:42 PM
Category:
News
There seems to be a lot of concern around the country about "Joe the Plumber" the man that McCain made famous overnight. And I must admit that I have recently become at least curious about what the future holds for him.
"Joe" is now a regular on the McCain campaign trail and holds a prominent position on the stage of each venue. It is most probable that the McCain campaign is footing the bill for his travel, lodging, etc. and he might even be making some decent money as a talk show guest here and there. But what about his future?
If Obama wins, "Joe" may have to return to being a plumber's helper or to actually meet the requirements in order to become a real licensed plumber. There are also fascinating scenarios such as him being discovered by Hollywood and becoming a movie hero. Stranger things have obviously happened.
If McCain wins, it could be a whole different world for "Joe." He has already been thrust into the national spot light, so what could be next? Would he be a prominent member of McCain's administration, perhaps the Treasury Secretary, or Secretary of State?
What does the future hold for "Joe the Plumber?"
Oct 30, 2008 | 1:48 PM
Category:
News
At least one major American corporation seems to "make the most" of their tax breaks and subsidies. Exxon Mobil just announced another record breaking profit of $14.83 Billion for the third quarter of 2008 according to Associate Press reports.
The present socialistic policies of our government seem to be working
pretty well for major industries like Exxon Mobil, but not very well
for the American Tax Payer. People are losing their jobs, their houses, and the upcoming holidays are beginning to look a little bleak.
Congress seems interested in ending those tax breaks and subsidies, however the Bush administration doesn't support such a move.
How do the two major presidential candidates, McCain and Obama feel about eliminating tax breaks and subsidies for the Oil Companies?
Should the American Tax Payers continue to support the record profits of firms like Exxon Mobil both at the pump and with their taxes?
Oct 28, 2008 | 3:10 PM
Category:
News
"American auto makers" are looking to the U.S government to bail them out with an infusion of taxpayer money. Yet they continue to outsource American jobs to Mexico and elsewhere.
Should the American taxpayer be expected to foot the entire bill for their bail-out, or should the other countries that are receiving the jobs be expected to pay their fair share?
Oct 27, 2008 | 4:56 PM
Category:
Political
Will we know the outcome of the presidential election on Tuesday night or early Wednesday morning?
Or will the outcome be delayed for days or even weeks due to "glitches" in the election system or legal maneuvering regarding the outcomes?
Oct 27, 2008 | 1:44 PM
Category:
Political
There is no doubt that the McCain Campaign is in trouble. McCain is trailing Obama in most national polls and there have been various things cited as reasons for him trailing.
Some people have indicated that the endorsements of Obama by some prominent Republicans like General Colin Powell have cost him votes. Others have suggested that his selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has alienated some potential supporters. There are a multitude of other reasons that have been given. But whatever the cause, he seems to be behind in most polls.
With one week left before the election, is there anything that could help McCain regain his losses?
Do you think that there are any last minute "surprises" that may change the tide of the election sometime between now and November 4?
If so, where will they come from?
Oct 24, 2008 | 5:37 PM
Category:
News
According to MSNBC, "The John McCain volunteer in Pittsburg who said she was robbed and sexually assaulted because of her political views" has admitted that she lied. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350530/
She even had a backward "B" scratched into her face, and said that a "black male attacker" had done it.
This type of incident is extremely dangerous given the present political and economic climate in our country.
Can we expect more of the same before the upcoming election or will this prove to be an isolated incident?
What would motivate a young woman to do such a thing?
Oct 24, 2008 | 11:18 AM
Category:
News
This morning's edition of USA Today had an article on the front page by Jim Michaels about the use of drug money to fund the Taliban.......no big surprise. It states that "More than 90 percent of the world's opium crop came from Afghanistan last year..." It seems as though our presence there has helped business.
Ironically on page 9A there is an article "U.S.- Bolivia trade deal on hold over drugs" that reports that "The U.S. is suspending a trade deal with Bolivia.............because Bolivian President Evo Morales has failed to boost anti-drug efforts."
Drug manufacturing in Mexico didn't hold up NAFTA even though production of heroin increased from 9 metric tons in 2000 to 30 metric tons in 2003 Additionally we are in the process of giving Mexico $400 million to fight drugs, even though a 2007 GAO Report on "Drug Control" indicated that U.S. assistance to Mexico has done very little to stop the drug flow into the U.S.
If all of these seemingly conflicting actions aren't enough, there is also the fact that the U.S. has spent billions on anti drug programs and has not had much success. There was an excellent article by Sam Enriguez in the LA Times, May 5, 2007 entitled "Antidrug efforts fall short" http://articles.latimes.com/2007/may/05/world/fg-cocain
e5
Considering the obvious failure of anti-drug programs in the U.S., and the poor condition of our national economy, should we continue to spend billions of dollars to fund them?
Oct 22, 2008 | 8:28 PM
Category:
Political
Like many Democrats who crossed party lines during the 1980s and voted for Republican President Ronald Reagan, many prominent Republicans have either endorsed or demonstrated support for Democratic Presidential Candidate Barrack Obama. They include General Colin Powell, Peggy Noonan, Christopher Buckley, Susan Eisenhower, and many others.
There is even a web site http://www.republicansforobama.org/ devoted to Republicans for Obama, which provides information for anyone interested.
Some people have speculated that McCain's choice of Palin as his VP has been the reason for Republicans moving to support Obama.
Others suggest that it is his lack of substantive positions on the important issues that is causing Republicans to cross over.
What do think is the primary reason that so many Republicans are now supporting Obama over McCain?
Could we be witnessing a change in the "fabric" of the Republican party?
Oct 19, 2008 | 9:59 AM
Category:
Political
The Republican former Secretary of State and Army General Colin Powell has formally endorsed Obama.
Fox News immediately got busy trying to "spin" the endorsement as lacking any substance.
Many Republicans have previously stated that they would have voted for Colin Powell if he had ran for President. So his judgment is obviously respected.
Will his endorsement help the Obama campaign?
Has he suddenly fallen from "grace" among Republicans as a result of his failure to place party above country?
Oct 19, 2008 | 8:39 AM
Category:
News
As I passed a news stand this morning I noticed a headline about President Bush proposing a summit of world leaders in November to find a solution to the present economic crisis.
This was startling news to me, because I thought that the administration had already figured out a solution and was getting $750 Billion to do the job.
Does this indicate that all of the bail-out money that is being distributed by the Administration is not according to a carefully devised plan?
In other words, doesn't the administration already have a plan?
Or can we expect much of our tax money to be squandered with little if any meaningful result for taxpayers?
Oct 15, 2008 | 8:45 AM
Category:
News
According to "USA Today Snapshots," the demand for yachts 80 feet or longer hit a new high this year.
Obviously the "rich are getting richer."
So does this mean that the money will "trickle down" and that the general population will also be enjoying good economic times in the near future?
