It’s been well documented, Obama owns this economy. The DNC Chair Wasserman-Shultz has said as much, VP Joe Biden has also said it and a vast majority of Republicans all say Obama owns the
economy as well. With piling, Trillion
dollar deficits and unemployment having maintained historic levels for extended
periods of time; the economic malaise Obama reigns over, is one that no
President can tout.
Remember, Clinton's
sign on his desk when he was in the oval office? Contrary to popular belief, it
was not: “The filing cabinet is under the desk, Interns” it was actually: “It’s
about the economy, stupid”.If it is
truly about the economic outlook of this nation; then President Obama is in
trouble come November.
Now personally, I believe the sheer size of the US
economy is so vast and lumbering, that the President gets too much credit when
“his” economy is running on all cylinders just as much he is unfairly ridiculed,
when it’s in the toilet. That however, is not the majority of how Americans
feel or think thou. If they can’t find work, it must be the Presidents fault. The truth of the matter is that the
average American does not have time to research what really are the driving
economic factors behind our economy good or bad; so the person sitting in the oval office is seen as a
personification of the whole economy.
Now, since we are going to use this embodiment to signal a "nay or ya"
regarding the economy, I would like to use this simplistic strategy to point
out something that doesn’t get talked about enough.
President Obama is the first President in 20+ years to see our nation’s top export
be Fuel. He is also the first President since Harry Truman (1949) to oversee
the US being a
net exporter of oil-based fuels. The US
has imported 11% less crude then it did in 2005. Ten years ago, fuel wasn’t or
barley made it in the Top 25 for US exports, but now it stands at #1?
Regardless of how or why, it doesn’t matter. He was the guy in office when
this happened, thus he owns this fast break to energy independence. Never mind
the new developments and discoveries in shale oil/gas or the fact that Obama
inherited the worst economic situation since the Great Depression. Let’s, not
let things like mitigating facts get in the way of our thinking. Mr Obama is
set to become one of the greatest achievers in modern presidential history in
our quest for energy independence and for that he will be looked back on as a
rousing success. Its all about perception isn’t it, or is it context?
Its been a rather hot
item this week. People have been picking apart Mitt Romney's latest budget
proposal and it isnt pretty. The lates offering (or borrowing might fit better)
of a Romney proposed budget would actually result in equal or larger deficits
then we already have under the current administration. I find that odd,
considering Romney has
said recently that it is: "immoral to pass burdens on the next
generation like that" meaning deficits and in turn the national debt.
This is the same Mittens who also said how he "can’t wait to get my
hands on Washington". I had
to ask myself; get your hands on it for what? Clearly, by his own admission in
his proposed budget, he would actually increase the deficit not shrink it, let
alone not balance the budget.
Romney's proposed budget got me thinking... is he seriously supposed to be
the candidate with business experience? You can't argue with the wealth he
built up. Hell, paying only 13% of your income in taxes can have that effect on
a multimillionaire, no? You can't argue with his education background or the
fact that he saved the Olympics, so why is it he has a problem balancing a
budget?
Surely, he had to do so in his business dealings, haggle with budgets. We
know he had to do so as governor, so why is trimming the existing deficit so
hard to do, let alone balance our nations budget? The short answer? He wants to
appeal to everyone. That
why he is flip-flop Mitt. Period.
With that said, I want to focus on one particular part of Romney's budget
and that is defense. Mittens recently said he would not only not cut defense,
he would commission a bump from building "nine per year to fifteen" new ships for the Navy as well as new
aircraft for the Air Force. Apparently, Mittens was feeling the love from the
USS Yorktown and maybe a little patriotic and nostalgic in the World War sense,
because he then dropped this bomb saying (as you can see below) he would
"add at least 100,000 troops to the boots on the ground capability".
The problem with that is first of all, we are not entering a world war. So where could we use this 100k influx? Iraq? We just withdrew (but lest not mention the 15K people left behind to defend the city-like embassy) our combat troops. Afghanistan? It was said two years ago that Al-Qaeda is 75-100 strong in country. That was out of the mouth of then CIA director and now Department of Defense chairman Leon Panetta. I'm guessing Panetta has no advantage of actually underselling our enemy now does he.
These are also the same terrorists who are "on our side" in the uprising that is taking place in Syria. Hmmm, we are going to be supplying and siding up with terrorists to defeat a nation that we do not like today, but will tomorrow in efforts to stop the terrorists that we now all of a sudden hate who once used to help us.... stop me if I am wrong, but have we not seen this movie before; in Afghanistan no less, circa 1979? Oh, never-mind, this movie is titled the "forever war" (thanks Clearwater) thus we never know how it ends and the perpetual boogy man? He just keeps a comin', he just gets a new face (and accent) every now and then, ala Herbert West.
So, why do we need 100,000 additional troops for? To invade Iran? To combat terrorism? Doesn't seem plausible. Seems like using a sledgehammer to swat flies. I would assume the troop levels we have now are more than enough to defend our nation but Mitt doesn't agree:
“We all recognize that America needs to economize, but I don’t believe
that we can economize on securing our nation and protecting our citizens
and ensuring that the world remains safe and free for us and for our
children,”
In fact, if you compare our spending on defense to the rest of the world as I pointed out in an earlier article this year; it's not even close in how much we outspend the rest of the top 17 nations who spend the most on defense combined.
National
defense spending has increased 38% since 2001. This idea that we are going
to spend more on defense and drastically increase its scope and sheer size,
leads me to the answer to my original question. So why do we need 100,000
additional troops for? And the answer is quite obvious. Just look at Romney's quote
when he says:
"ensuring that the
world remains safe and free for us"
There it is. And that is the shared mentality from most of Washington
not just Romney. Kind of reminds me of the newest Navy slogan "A global
force for good". The problem with that? The word "Good" is
awfully ambiguous. How "good" are we, if you're an innocent bystander
whose lost their life or a loved one(s) in Iraq
or Afghanistan.
Is that "good" worth a son who was put into a battle field without
even a deceleration of war from Congress?
"Good", just like the words "safe" and "free"
in Romney's quote are equally indistinct. I thought we already were pretty
safe. Apparently, Romney does not agree and that is why he is touting a pretty
substantial face lift for the DOD. The phrase "free for us"? How can
the world be free for us? Chew on that one, I know i still am.
Which leads me to my final point. Romney is proposing not only an agenda
that is completely out of whack compared to what the rest of the world is
spending on defense, it is also an agenda that is mathematically infeasible in
an environment where we should be embracing austerity measures to live within
our means. Here is a recent quote
from of all people, Valdimir Putin, on the past, current and future US
foreign policy outlook:
"the United States, have
developed a peculiar interpretation of security that is different from ours.
The Americans have become obsessed with the idea of becoming absolutely
invulnerable. This utopian concept is unfeasible both technologically and
geopolitically, but it is the root of the problem. By definition, absolute
invulnerability for one country would in theory require absolute vulnerability
for all others"
I know some of you out there are thinking "why do we care what the
future President of Russia has to say about us" and I understand that
sentiment; however, it's awfully sobering to have the Russians more in line
with reality than a hopeful for the
Presidency of the United States.
To be fair, Romney is not alone on the campaign trail in this insanity, and it
clear the Oval office shares this paranoia as well.
With that, I leave you with a quote, that in today's Republican Party would
be considered a Liberal stance on foreign policy. From the same man who shed
the initial light on the Congressional Military Industrial Complex (how
apropos), former President, Dwight D. Eisenhower:
"We will bankrupt
ourselves in the vain search for absolute security"
I remember people used to steal hood ornaments back in the 90's and wear them as charms on chains. I grew up (pardon the pun) hood (in the suburbs), what can I say. In the last five to ten years I have seen the same hip-hop culture buying gold or silver "grills" for their mouth. Now it appears its has come full circle. The grill has replaced the hood ornament and for actually two reasons. First, car company's caught on and ended that trend by stopping the production of them. Secondly, gold is valuable. Not just more valuable then a hood ornament but more valuable then dollars... so they are shrewd investors, these kids nowadays.
In August of 1971, President Nixon ended Bretton Woods effectively floating our Dollar and subsequently making the dollar the reserve currency of the world, having no longer having to be exchanged for gold. When Bretton Woods ended, one ounce of gold was equal to $35 dollars. Today, gold (even taking a substantial hit) closed at $1,696 dollars. That $35 Dollars? Is worth still $35 nominally, but real purchasing power?
If I used the latest CPI from the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistic, that same $35 dollars would buy you $6 dollars worth of goods today. That is an 82% loss of purchasing power. At the same time, gold has lapped its initial value (in 1971) 48 times. Is there any wonder why people are clamoring to invest in precious medals? Here is a chart of gold in the last 10 years:
So it should not come to a shock when you see stories like this:
Its 1391 in Iran,
you best pass on that grass; if you want to save your ass. It is literally 1391
according to Iran’s
calendar, and here I thought I was always a contrarian? Back in 76' when we were celebrating our bi-centennial the last Shah of Iran (see 1953 US led coup) flipped the calendar from 1355 to 2535... overnight! The
Persians, well, they apparently take contrarianism to another level. Obviously the irony
of that difference in centuries isn’t lost on me when I seen this headline in
the Washington Post last night:
My first thought was “well, Iran
is trying to reduce gasoline usage” but I figured that was even too drastic for
this regime… but not too far off. As I read I was surprised to learn that:
1. The executions are in
public for everyone to see.
2. About 80 percent of
the executions involved drug offenses and many were minors.
3. Iran’s Penal Code
make demonstrations, public debate and the formation of groups deemed a threat to ‘national security’
punishable by prison or death
What jumped off the page was that drug offenses are
the overwhelming majority of the executions. But that doesnt touch the ludicrous notion of sentencing minors to death, i mean wow. I would continue but I think there
isn’t much else to be said. Public debate is one of the many offenses that could be cause for
a stoning or hanging… writing this blog and you reading it could be two acts
that were punishable by death. Does this not seem like something taken out of
the dark ages?? Circa 1391??
It makes sense though. Drugs and public debate (both
offenses) would open up some eyes resulting in a formation of groups (also an
offense) of like minded “awoken” people and before you know it, national security would be threatened. You would have yourselves another Arab spring
uprising. While I don’t agree, I can see the Iranians reasoning. Had anyone
have the insight and organization it would end that theocracy resulting in
public executions of the publicly “elected” leaders. Basically, its a little
C.Y.O.A.
This had me thinking about our nation and it dawned on me that some people would prefer a government that blends their faith here in the states. Take Slick Rick, Santorum actually said this week he doesn't believe in the "absolute separation of church and state". While some might rationalize this or explain it the bottom line is any type of religious beliefs should always be excluded because religion isn't exactly inclusive. Its been the basis for a few conflicts over time. You will always have people that will become disenfranchised and government cannot be in the business of playing favorites or picking winners (hahaha).
The overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful souls, but there is a small percentage of them and a high percentage of them running entire nations that use pieces of the Koran to justify horrendous acts. There is also rouge groups of men that use the Koran to endorse and carry out terrorist acts. Now, superimpose that here if we didn't have the separation of church and state or if we started chipping way at that now.
The overwhelming majority of Christians are peaceful souls but there is that 800 lb crazy book in the room like the Muslim version, but older... and with a sequel starring a pretty cool hippie with a sandals. Being Slick Rick is Christian; have you ever read Deuteronomy or Exodus? Imagine if someone started bringing those books to capital hill for show n tell? Gee, i hope they wouldn't pick out the parts concerning the murder of unbelievers (yikes). Praise God, we have the separation of church and state.
