Blog

Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.  Two fine Republicans.  These men shared more than just their political party.  They both had very similar views on what sh ould be done about the domestic economy.  Alhtough Reagan was much more of an extremist when it came to implementing his principles, both men believe in the “trickle-down” theory.

The trickle down theory, also known as supply side economics, or Reaganomics, was based on the principle that if people did not have to give their money to the government, and had more money, they would spend more, making business flourish.  These businesses that have excess cash would reinvest it into their company, hiring more people, providing jobs, which would then start the cycle all over again.

When Ronald Reagan came in to office in 1981, one of the first things he did was slash federal personal income taxes by 25%, and to offset the lower revenue for the government, cut many social spending programs too.  After a slight recession when he first came into office, the economy grew by an impressive 7.9 % over his presidency.  The lower taxes and high defense spending, in addition to fixing up social security led to the federal deficit growing.

George W. Bush believes in a similar policy, but not taken to the extreme like Reagan did.  When Bush first came into office, one of the first things he did was implement nation wide tax cuts, totaling $1.2 trillion.  He then removed many restrictions and increased the number of exemptions for certain taxpayers.  What has the result of all of this been?  Unemployment is now just above 4%, after a peak of 6%, Wall Street has set numerous records over the past few years, and the economy is strong.

Bush and Reagan’s economic policy are quite similar, with a few minor differences. There is empirical evidence that laissez-faire economics do work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Economic_policy

The Baker Report, from the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan commission designed to find alternate plans for
Iraq, based on the widespread sentiment that the
US could be operating more successfully in
Iraq.  The commission offered 79 alternatives in its 160 pages.

One of the biggest changes that Bush would have to implement regards the issue of timing. Bush repeatedly states that troops will remain in
Iraq until the mission is completed (staying the course).  The Report recommended to have most combat troops out by 2008, with some remaining in
Iraq to manage newly trained Iraqi forces.

I had initially thought that this report would be just another round of liberals bashing conservatives, getting little accomplished.  However, the Report’s numerous recommendations were feasible in one way or another, and were not focused on finger pointing or the past.  Rather, the focused on proactive steps that could be taken to ameliorate the situation.  This positive attitude, focused on results is not only great for a sticky situation like the war in
Iraq, but also shows how our government should be run: with a goal in mind, which requires people to transcend personal sentiments or emotions.  The Report was and is momentous on numerous levels.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=144607

Let’s set the record straight.  Gas prices are not that high-take out inflation, and we are at just above 1950 levels.  Humans are not the reason that the globe is getting warmer, and the very slight degree to which the globe has been heating is more or less insignificant.  When the time comes for a change, the economy will dictate that.  In the entire world, but especially capitalist America, the economy will yield a perfect opportunity for a new mode of production.  And, if you don’t believe any of the above words, you’ll be dead as will your kids by the time anything too bad happens.

<blockquote>

Adjusted for inflation, the gallon of gasoline that costs $2.05 today would have cost 27 cents in 1950. Ironically, the average nationwide price for a gallon of regular gasoline in 1950 was 27 cents.</blockquote>  This is from 2004.  Gas prices have changed little relative to all our other purchasing power–in fact, it is cheaper than ever.  A 1950 series 61 Cadillac coupe cost $2761.  This means that the car cost 1000 times more than a gallon of gas.  A nice car today, take for example a Mercedes E 350-comparable in prestige, costs $50,055, and gas is around $2.50 a gallon (the average changes daily).  Today, the car is about 2000 times more expensive than a gallon of gas.  I see no one moaning to the car companies about prices being too high-gas is fine.  And, my car gets 9 miles to the gallon, so I feel the burden.

Global warming has been blown into some big to-do, saying that humans are heating the globe, thanks to our fossil-fuel burning society and inefficiency.  The fact is we a) don’t know enough to say that we are heating up the globe, versus it being on some heating cycle, and b) much of the greenhouse gases that are emitted are not from humans, but from other natural sources-cows, the oceans, other animals, volcanoes, etc.  When it becomes economical for someone to drive a hydrogen powered car, or use some other mode of transportation, there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the change from fossil fuel to the new source of energy will be relatively easy.  There are already many alternate ways of transportation out there-hydrogen cars are no longer a dream, but a reality.  Why don’t people drive them?  They cost too much.  eventually, when gas stations see that they could earn more money dispensing hydrogen, all gas stations nation and world wide will have hydrogen pumps.  Basically, Global warming is not a serious issue to worry about.  Change always has come in times of need, comes now, and will continue to come.

CHeck out this slide show:

http://www.darylscience.com/GW.ppt

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/05/16/Neighborhoodtimes/Gas_prices_too_high_R.shtml

Julia writes <blockquote>Iraq and Vietnam share many similarites. Both wars are waged against an idea.  Vietnam was fought to prove the point that the US would not tolerate communism and would go to war to prevent it. They did not want communism to form a foothold in Indonesia for fear that it would begin to take root in other places as well (the Domino Theory).  The Iraq war is part of a much larger war being waged upon terror. </blockquote>

Iraq and Vietnam are similar in the fact that we are fighting a force we really are having a difficult time finding.  It is draining our financial resources, and creating a general resentement towards America from other countries.  However, the two wars, as stated in my other blog, are quite different.  The Vietnam war was started out of fear.  Fear that communism would spread to all of Asia, and later to the rest of the world.  The Vietnam war was an offensive effort to crush communists in Vietnam.  Iraq started on extremely different premises.  The United States is now being a police force.  After Saddam Hussein was overthrown, there was no official government in Iraq.  Since there are people who take pleasure in being lawless fools, and since the culture in the Middle East is a very vengeful culture, violence broke out.  The United States is trying now to minimize the violence from the Iraqis, and train Iraqis to maintain peace with military procedures.  These wars are in reality extremely different.

There is a lot of hype going around these days about the shocking similarities between the Vietnam War and the current war in Iraq.  This is very far from the truth.  The Vietnam War originated from a deepset fear of communism.  The UNited States sought to stop the spread of communism, in the fear that other countries would then become communist, and eventually the whole world would be a bright red communist civilization (The Domino Theory).  When troops were deployed in Vietnam, it was unclear who they were fighting.  Much of the country was extremely beautful, and the seemingly innocent farmers in the vicinity did nothing to justify the extreme violence.  The Vietnam War was fought to eradicate a political system and replace it with ours. 

The Iraq war is very different.  It was suspected that Saddam Hussein, the then-ruler of Iraq posessed weapons of mass destruction.  Although none were found, the United States overthrew Saddam and his extremely oppresive regime, which included ruthless murderings of civilians.  When there was no government in place, chaos erupted.  Just like we have people who murder others, who rob banks and launder money, the same type  of person-lawless with no consdieration for others exists over in Iraq.  This has made the United States act as a police force, trying to uphold public safety.  Already, we see few similarites in the “rasion d’etre” of the two wars. 

Granted, both wars face similar problems.  Guerilla tactics are being used, and the United States is having a very difficult time punishing the insurgents.  Both were and are tremendous financial burdens.  Many people decide to not believe the White House’s statements, claiming that the two wars differ greatly.  When troops who fought in both Vietnam and Iraq explain that the two wars are grossly different, it is near impossible to refute, having not fought in either of the wars.  Chief Warrant Officers DeWayne Browning and Randy Weatherhead, both helicopter pilots in Iraq and Vietnam, express their opinions in this USA Today article.

 <blockquote>If there are parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, these graying soldiers and the other Vietnam veterans serving here offer a unique perspective. They say they are more optimistic this time: They see a clearer mission than in Vietnam, a more supportive public back home and an Iraqi population that seems to be growing friendlier toward Americans.</blockquote>

<blockquote>

“Vietnam was an entirely different war than this one,” he says. The basic job of flying helicopters is the same, but the overall mission now is clear when it wasn’t then. “We thought in Vietnam we were doing the right thing, and in the end it didn’t seem that way,” he says.</blockquote>

 You decide for yourself.  Ask yourself if you really know what you are talking about.  Have you been in a war?  Have you been to Iraq?  The Iraq war and the Vietnam war share few similarites.  There are completely different.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-06-20-iraq-vietnam-vets_x.htm

Kayla writes:

The expectation that any one person, be it race or just individual, to rise from a state of immense proverty almost immediately is almost ridiculous. One must have the money for a decent education, live in an area with decent transportation, and eventually own up to a job with a high enough income and assets to be considered Middle Class. Of course, assests usually come with inheritance, which if rising towards the Middle Class may be a necessity. If one did not come from a family with anything than there is truly no way to get inheritance.

Kayla is supporting the myth that many people believe, and that some fools spread in order to rally hatred towards America. The fact of the matter is that this “American Dream,” which is exactly what Kayla is discussing, is not in any way a myth. It is real, and will continue to be real. My paternal grandfather came from a family living on a farm in Western Canada, with literally no money. They had to struggle to put food on the table each day. However, starting with nothing, he realized that his position did not reflect his potential, and was not where he wanted to be in life, so he knew that he must, at all costs, get an education. He did so, and became the chief Civil Engineer in Alberta, Canada for about 25 years. My maternal grandfather immigrated from Italy in the 1920’s, and lived in a tenement with his 7 siblings, and single mother, whose husband was dead. At age 16, he was putting food on the table for the entire family, going to school, and saving money for his own use. He started with nothing, and went on to be a school principle and English teacher.

This happens today too. Oprah Winfrey. “Winfrey spent her first six years living in rural poverty with her Grandma Hattie Mae. Winfrey’s grandmother taught her to read before the age of three and took her to the local church…When she was 14, her frustrated mother sent her to live with her father in Nashville, Tennessee. Vernon was strict, but encouraging and made her education a priority. Winfrey became an honors student, was voted “Most Popular Girl”, joined her high school speech team, and placed second in the nation in dramatic interpretation.” What explains the success of her? Is it the entrenched wealth of the family? Is she the Chosen One? Why did she become so successful? Her father encouraged an education, and she focused on this wholeheartedly. The results are obvious. She is nearing a net worth of $1 billion.

Don’t let me say that success is sheerly financial. There are many different kinds of success, however, statistics cannot deal with emotions and lessons that people have learned over their journes through life, instead only the money that followed them. This rules out the fact that while someone may be low on the national level, recieving welfare checks, living in a cheap neigborhood, they could be one of the wealthiest (not richest) people on the face of the earth. They might be affecting those around them, urging people to take a stand against crime, to not tolerate the qualities that make their neighborhood undesireable. This is just another form of the American Dream, still alive. The gap between someone’s race and class boils down, yet again to the unique individual, striving to make a differnce in their community, in the region, in the world.

http://shikyonotenshi.learnerblogs.org/category/the-intersection-of-race-and-class/

World War One came and went, and the Roaring Twenties followed soon after, with tremendous inflation and economic prosperity. However, at the end of 1929, the tides chnaged, and the UNited States, along with much of the world, was in on the largest depression modern civilization had seen at the time. Many people could not afford basic necessities of life, such as food and clothing, many banks closed, and peoples lives, it seemed, couldn’t get any worse. Despite tremendous efforts to ease the situation, depression ensued. This was soon broken by the start of WWII, for us when the Japanese bombed Pear Harbor. The sudden demand for supplies and arms revitalized the economy, but consumers could not do anything, because much of the items people would buy–cars, clothing, more expensive food, etc., were severly rationed by the government. This entire period had a tremendous impact on famlies. Things got tough when they became broke, and just as the tide might be changing, a war started, and most of the men had to go off and possibly die overseas. By the end of WWII, people were sick of the tumult that had ensued for the two decades before it. It was time to settle down, be in control of one’s life, and at the very least, try to believe that this was the case.

Television programming in the 1950’s was extremely homogeneous, portraying to the viewing audience what life should be like, with a beautiful house, a beautiful family, and successful, well-rounded children. The code of “Least objectionable programming” was in full swing. This is because the adult, controlling class of the time had all lived through more than 15 years of crap. People were sick of things going wrong, famlies being broken from death (WWII), lack of freedom and choice due to financial constraints (Depression). Even if it wasn’t true, people desperately seeked to have a society that wasn’t plagued by all sorts of problems. The “Leave it to Beaver,” or “Ozzie and Harriet” familes were myths. Why did they exist? The same reason that sets America apart from most other nations: our free market. Back then, as I have previously stated, models of perfection, free of soldiers dying and kids without shoes were the desire of the consumer. TV networks could charge more for ads, making more money, because the people favored this style of program. Today, the same stands true, but it is more profitable to be airing shows that are degrading to mankind, with free love, and kids who are being disrespectful, egotistical, and rude to their elders.

Cliff: What was different about life pre-war and postwar?
Dorothea: During the War, Vincent and Margaret were very young children, but we had to use the same shoes until the sole was just gone. We also had to put our car on blocks, and my father, a mechanic, had much less business. I had to cook with any little thing I could find, and Joe (my husband) and I had to plant gardens to supplement what we could get with the foodstamps. When the war finally ended, we were sick of everything. My brother had to fight, and talking about the war with him was a real faux-pas. People just wanted to…move on, start over again.

Modern programming can be offensive and potentially harmful, however I am very supportive of exposure to all the different views on society and life. In addition to that, we are simply in the latest “cycle” of pop culture. It is importnat that we retain our individuality, be proud of our true identity (not some attention-grabbing crap that people put on) to remain on the path of bettering society.
Sources: Interview with Dorothea Bellafiore
Adam Smith-(the invisible hand of the marketplace)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r74u5668571h4082/
Arthur Schelsinger-cylces of american politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclical_theory

As WWII came to a conclusion, America was el supremo. Images like the flag being raised at Iwo Jima, and flags being hung on other rubble stricken places, showed the power that the United States military had. To fight for the country was not just honorable from the opinion of the citizens of the US, but in the eyes of many around the world. They fought to maintain and promote the liberties and democracy that, at the time, few other nations of had the privileges. The GI’s who had fought were rewarded with a comprehensive package to ease the financial burden of reentering society, with special loans, and most importantly, a much cheaper (and sometimes free) higher education.

Today, one of the numerous aspects that attracts people to join the armed forces is the educational financial aid. For a qualifying member of the armed forces, who is a full time student, up to $1075 will be distributed monthly. For many people who come from places with entrenched wealth, paying for an education is no problem. However, for those who come from less rich areas, an education can be a severe financial burdern. Allow me to commend the people who enlist for this purpose, because they realize the inherent advantage that an education can give them in our social, political, and economic systems.

Responding to the question Mr. Olmstead asks,

Is it fair that the military attracts primarily America’s poor and working class because of economic incentives?

the answer is no. It is not fair. However, it is near impossible to think of something that is fair. The person who is making the sacrafice and taking the risk to fight for an education is not doing it just for himself. His family then will probably have access to a better educational system because he will move to an area which emphasizes education, due to his obvious priority thereof. People in all walks of life make sacrafices due to their common faith in the future. Although it may not be fair that the person enlisting needs to risk death, this is not an issue like the race/class divide, which finds its roots back to slavery.
http://www.gibill.va.gov/GI_Bill_Info/rates/CH30/ch30rates100106.htm (MR. O-I am doing this on a Mac, and the only way to put a link in was by pasting the URL. Sorry)

Continuing on with the race/wealth/class debate, it is important to know where this problem initiated.

In the early part of the 19th century there were no schools in the southern states of America admitted black children to its free public schools. Some brave teachers such as John Chavis in Rayleigh, North Carolina, ran secret night schools. Teachers found educating black children would be run out of town. Margaret Douglass, who was caught teaching black children in Norfolk, Virginia, was convicted and imprisoned for her actions.

The reason for the massive gap in todays race vs. class originates with slavery, with the main factor not being that blacks were treated as items of property, but becuase an education, as is clearly stated in the quote above, was not an option for slaves. With an education, the options people have in their life double many times. In the United States’ free market system, a man who can read, write, and speak clearly is a more valuble asset to a company or employer. Why? He has an education. The slaves had no access to an education, which made them useless to employers (once slavery had ended of course), then keeping them in their same position on the socioeconomic ladder in our society. This circle would in theory perpetuate (as it does in most cases), meaning that all the ex-slaves and their descendants are stuck where they are. What then explains how more minorities are entering the middle class? It is exactly what Bill Cosby was saying in the previous post, about people’s choices and will to ameliorate their situation. It doesn’t matter what happened in the past to put people in the situation that they are in presently. What is important is that people make vast and unceasing efforts to change the situation and get educated at all costs. Unfortunately, this last point is the most important, yet least emphasized. In communites where large amounts of people are impoverished, it is not instilled in their cultural values to, at all costs, get an education. This cultural gap is what explains why there are extremely high percentages of blacks and latinos vs. whites (see first link at bottom) dropping out of hs-an educatino is not enforced as the most important part of ones upbringing.
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/droprac2.html Click this, and explore all the other graphs and links found on the right side of the screen.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASeducation.htm

Why are more poor people black than white?  Why is there a larger percentage of blacks who are impoverished than whites?  It all began with the past, when there was first slavery, and blacks were pieces of property, like the computer you are looking at, or like the pen on your desk.  After the Civil War and the many failed attempts to equalized the situation, blacks suffered from severe systematic racism.  Finally, after years and years, there is the opportunity for blacks to be equal to whites, and join not the black middle class, but the middle class.  The reason that many blacks are still stuck in their socioeconomic position is due to education.  We are trained that education, at all costs, is the most important tool we could possibly have.  We have schools we can go to, while up until recently, blacks could not attend.  For the blacks that went to college, got a degree, and were determined to leave their cruddy lifestyle, success was a given. 

The reason that there are still such obscene numbers of blacks (and whites) in poverty boils down to themselves.  Yes, many of them do not have the tools to accomplish many of the necessary steps to get an education and a job, while people with pre-existing wealth have a tremendous advantage, with who to talk to, how to behave etc.  Still at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what other people have done–it matters what concrete and proactive steps the individual takes to ameliorate his/her life. 

Bill Cosby is an entertainer, comedian, and in recent years a rising activist.  He shares similar views to me on the issue of moving to a differnt socioeconomic class.

Ladies and gentlemen, these people set — they opened the doors, they gave us the right, and today, ladies and gentlemen, in our cities and public schools we have 50% drop out. In our own neighborhood, we have men in prison. No longer is a person embarrassed because they’re pregnant without a husband. No longer is a boy considered an embarrassment if he tries to run away from being the father of the unmarried child.

I’m talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange suit. Where were you when he was two? Where were you when he was twelve? Where were you when he was eighteen, and how come you don’t know he had a pistol? And where is his father, and why don’t you know where he is? And why doesn’t the father show up to talk to this boy?

In this persuasive and gripping speech to the NAACP, Cosby says that it is the responsibility of the individual, and the parents to ensure success.  He says that the only way a change will be made is if people clean up their act-don’t tolerate dropping out of school, abhor gun usage.  This is the only viable solution.  Giving money to the lower classes solves nothing.  It is not okay for someone to drop out of school to care for a newborn baby.  People instead need to demonstrate basic responsibility and not have sex.  Cosby points out that our deteriorating values are the cause of this tremendous class gap.  When people hold themselves as proud beings, educate themselves, care for others, and take steps to make changes, a true change will be made.

See the spech here.