Saturday, November 26, 2005

Beggar Republicans and Deficit Spending

Before the Republicans managed to gain control back in the late 70's , they were known for quite a few things. First, they were known as war hawks. Second, they were anti-affirmative action (and some, against other races in general). Finally, they were anti-social service spending. But most importantly of all, Republicans were known to be fiscally responsible, wanting to cut so called "wasteful" spending by the government.

Those days are over. Today, after a takeover of the House, Senate, and Presidency since 2002, we see that the Republicans, when it comes to fiscal policy, have no fucking clue what they're talking about. For years, Republicans have been decrying "tax and spend" liberals. Now they've shown that they don't "tax" and "spend", they just spend other people's money. For years now, the Republicans have been driving up a deficit, a deficit that we will have to pay later. By we, I mean my generation and following generations.

And they have the balls to say that it doesn't matter! That's the worst part. It's as if they failed basic economics entirely, or lack the competency to even hold office. According to them, the deficit doesn't matter because:

1.) Everyone loves America's economy
2.) Reducing it would hurt our economy
3.) It's needed for lower taxes

Each one of those is total bullshit, and here's why:

1.) Everyone loves America's economy

They do, but only right now. Other countries' economies are on the rise, and at the rate some of them are going, America has the distinct chance of not being the only superpowerful market in the world. It's only because our economy is extremely powerful that foreign companies invest heavily in it. Without these investments, we wouldn't be able to finance our debt at all and our economy would crash. Here's where two problems come it. First, current foreign investment, at best, can only finance a deficit at half of our current rate. Secondly, if another country arises that comes even close to rivally the US's economic strength, we're screwed. No other nation is racking up nearly as huge a debt as the US currently is, and therefore would carry much less risk. Foreign investments would suddenly go towards that other country, and we sink. We have to prepare for this possiblity.

2.) Reducing it would hurt our economy

So would not reducing it. As the debt gets larger, interest rates have to go higher in order for the US Treasury to better finance this massive debt. These interest rates will rise higher and higher, making loans harder on the average American.

3.) It's needed for lower taxes

The current share of the national debt for each person is over $27,000. For every single member of the US, that is the amount, from young babies to the oldest senior citizens. An average family of 4 owes over $100,000 in debt to foreign nations, thanks to the spending of the Republicans. That's a lot of money that will have to be paid in taxes.

Haven't the beggar Republicans done enough? Can't they find a way to finance their fiscal policy? It's time to find people who truly are fiscal responsible and don't just claim to be.

Friday, November 11, 2005

Farm Subsidies Suck

$143 billion. That's the amount the American public has paid to failing agriculture industries in the United States. How much growth has resulted from this investment? $0.

That's right, none. Agricultural economic growth has been seen out of this at all in the last 10 years. American tax dollars have given $143 billion in help to US farmers, and yet it takes Ben and Jerry to save small farms. This is just sad.

Why are farm subsidies so bad? It's because no matter how the agricultural season turns out, the government loses. Shortages on the crops? The federal government loses as farms across the nation default on loans. Surpluses in crops? The federal government loses as well. How? It's because the farmers are afraid of inflation, and have all crops set at an "ideal" 1929 adjusted price. Guess what the US government has to do? It has to buy up all of the surplus so the price stays the same. Either way, we lose.

That's $143 billion wasted for nothing. There must be something done. I propose an immediate end to all farm subsidies now and the removal of "ideal" price. We can't afford to waste $143 billion again.

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Wow. An update.

I know I havn't updated in awhile, but this is partially to blame on school, and partially to blame on my own lazy ass for cramming every test.

Anyways, we go back to an age old debate about...abortion. Quite frankly, I think this argument is pointless in terms of science, and all of that nice stuff. Conservatives state that it is life because it's growing, brain waves are detected in X amount of weeks. Liberals state that it's not alive, because it can't sustain life on it's own. This is pretty much all meaningless. For one to truely evaluate whether or not Abortion should be legal, one must look for the different arguments dealing with this sort of stuff. For the lack of better terms, in order to avoid a definition war on, "life," we respond to the contradictions in the opponent's idea. Due to the fact that I'm fairly liberal, I shall fight against the conservative side.

Putting all moralities aside, conservatives support the banning of abortion. However, in doing so (with their current argument), one must realize that you must also ban fertility clinics for those who are unable to have kids. Many republicans state that as soon as a sprm unites with an egg, it is now, life in their definition. However, for a fertility clinic to work, multiple eggs are injected into a women's uterus due to the fact that many of them have a high chance of death. It's technically killing embryo's isn't it?

This same argument can go with stem cell research. While it may be, "killing," embryos, you still cannot ignore the fact that fertility clinics still do the same thing. If you lose one, you lose the other.