Chinese Democracy

Is it just me, or is anyone else concerned about China buying large amounts of US debt? This absolutely scares the heck out of me. Considering how much money China has currently bought from us, if they ever decided to ask for their money back, it would absolutely cripple our nation financially.

China has historically owned large amounts of US debt. The idea of them taking on more debt would only help further solidify their interests in having the US succeed economically. Our success is vital to China getting their money back.

In our global economy the economy of other nations is directly tied to the success of the US. If we fail economically, then as we have most recently seen, the economies of other nations fail as well. This is why it might be argued that buying US debt is in the best interests of foreign nations. If we can't pay our bills, and spend money in the global economy, then we can't buy foreign goods. America is a consumer nation; if our demand drops off signifantly (or entirely) because we don't have any money to spend, then other nations suffer as well.

So America is essentially becoming one large publicly traded company. Think about that. We have foreign investors who have bought a large stake in "America Co".

The other fear that I have regarding China's new purchase of US debt, is that they may use this debt as a bargaining chip in foreign relations negotiations. Just the other day, the media reported that China had began increasing their military. For what? What could China possibly have planned?

I would think that China's purchase of more US debt could be used either as (a) leverage to keep the US at bay or (b) would indirectly influence negotiations between Secretary of State Clinton and Chinese diplomats. That's just my take on it. But like I said earlier, one reassuring point is the the US must succeed in order for China to get their money back.

In my opinion, we could be in a precarious position to negotiate with China to stop their military build-up, especially if China decided recall the loans they have provided the US. We would be financially bankrupt and there are no other nations in a position to absorb that kind of debt. This also provides some solace because at least China knows that no other nation could provide us a loan to pay China back.

And that's a great reason to push our legislators for fiscal responsibility. We have made ourselves entirely too vulnerable to outside economic threats. The "War on Terror" is scary enough without adding the possible threat of national bankruptcy. Simply put, we should not be spending the kind of money that are in the bailout package, the current budget, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

We have spent so much money and have such a large deficit that currently we can't even make payments on the principal of those loans. Our entitlement spending continues to grow as the Baby Boom generation reaches retirement and requires more medical treatment from Medicare. Coupled with our defense spending, entitlement program spending and interest on foreign loans makes up most of our budget. If we want to see our taxes go down sometime, we need to make radical adjustments to the way we construct and execute our budget.

What would John Maynard Keynes think regarding our "free economy"? What about Alexis de Tocqueville? What happened to the idea of a free market where the businesses that were inefficient were replaced by ones that were? I know it's been argued that we should not allow these companies to fail because it would be detrimental to the US. But to be honest, allowing these companies to fail would mean that we use less deficit spending and wane our foreign investment. The more foreign investment we have, the more likely the chances are of the US failing; and the US cannot (emphasis) fail. Ever. If we do fail, it would most certainly mean "Chinese Democracy" for us all.

If the 'economic crisis' advertisement is right above this...

Then I blame Nancy Pelosi for the economic crisis.

I am of course joking, but I just genuinely can't stand the woman. Politics aside, who has the audacity to request her own private jet when Congress has already lambasted bailout companies for having the same? Additionally, where does she get the nerve to claim that enforcing American immigration law is "un-American"? She really is a despicable human being.

More to come on her in a future post/opinion article!

-Patrick

The Fleecing of America

Pardon my borrowing this phrase from NBC, but recent events that have transpired (or almost transpired) most accurately fit the expression of the "Fleecing of America".

I know I will catch some flack from more liberal readers, but that’s not why I’m writing this column; the topics I will mention should make any red-blooded, tax-paying American irate.

First and foremost, let me discuss the indignity of the AIG bailout and subsequent performance bonuses. There is such great distaste in the amount of irony from this situation; contractual performance bonuses are being paid to top executives who failed at their jobs. This is contrary to everything that even corporate America has come to know. If your job is to secure the longevity of your company and you fail, normally you are terminated. However, with AIG, the top executives who epically failed in their job have not been terminated, but rather have collectively received $165 million in bonuses from the $182 billion we as tax payers (and our children and their children) provided to bailout their company.

And that’s the most astonishing part.

We, the American citizens, the members of non-corporate America, through our Congress and our President, decided that it was in our best interests to ensure that AIG did not fail. We bought our way into the company and currently, we are the 80% shareholders of the company. However, instead of the company trying to do what is in the best interests of the shareholders (us), they have instead opted to take the money we provided them to reward the incompetence of top executives who put AIG in such a position.

It is my opinion that; (1) the recipients of these bonuses should have been fired for their incompetence, (2) the company should have suspended the bonuses much like other companies that received bailout funds, or (3) all of the bonuses should be returned. Some of the recipients of these bonuses have elected to voluntarily return the bonuses, but not all of the bonuses have been returned. Congress has recently started talks of taxing (at 90%) the bonuses provided to the executives of the companies that receive bailout funds. At least this time Congress has decided to clean up their own mess.

The lack of integrity and intestinal fortitude demonstrated by the executives of AIG should make everyone angry. My next example should make people just as furious.

Recently, the Obama administration kicked around the idea of suspending the health insurance benefits of veterans that have their own private insurance coverage. This would even include those veterans that have sustained service-related injuries. This was proposed as a cost-savings measure for the nation. President Obama would have these veterans who have served so bravely to go without one of their most important benefits. Why should a veteran who sustains an injury serving our nation have to pay the costs (any in my opinion) of serving his or her country?

(To steal and manipulate a famous quote from John F. Kennedy) In the case where these soldiers (past, present, and future) have asked what they could do for their country, the least the country could do is ask what they can do for these men and women. Rather, President Obama has not asked what he can do for the people that serve(d) his country, he has instead asked where he can send the bill.

President Obama did back off from this proposal (thank goodness) but only because it was so unpopular with the people. The fact that he even proposed the idea is a slap in the face of the people who serve(d) their nation. Obama’s lack of sound policies is becoming more evident, daily. Obama’s lack of military experience has no doubt aided in this hair-brained idea of stripping veterans of their health benefits. What happened to the days when a President could not get elected unless he had served his country in the military?

So go pick your final four, President Obama. Go on the Tonite Show with Jay Leno. Enjoy your private concerts in the White House. Go on being the "rockstar" that people selected as their president. During the events of 9/11, President Bush opted (at least out of respect) to put his social life on hold. I highly suggest that you take the examples set forth by other leaders during the current crisis America is facing.

Domestic Abuse and Infotainment

Enough about Chris Brown and Rihanna, already. I’m sick and tired of hearing about this story. It’s inescapable. Everyone has an opinion. Everyone has their own analysis. Everyone has turned into a domestic relations counselor.
Why is this even news? Why does everyone care? Aren’t there more pressing matters to discuss?
How is Chris Brown even famous? I had never heard of him before he beat up Rihanna. I had vague familiarity with Rihanna only because the radio stations play her songs on loop to the point of repetitive annoyance.
This is obviously a horrible situation I would never wish on anyone, but certainly I think there is a line to draw between reporting celebrity "news" and obsession. We were (and are) obsessed with the OctoMo and we are obsessed with Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, and Jennifer Anniston.
This is part of the new phenomenon of selling "infotainment"; information that is packaged along with entertainment. The "news" we are receiving is becoming more and more infotainment (with a decreasing amount of information and an increasing amount of entertainment).
There has been some lively debate since the news broke on February 8th about the events that transgressed that evening between Rihanna and Brown. Should she take him back? Who was the mystery woman involved that started the fight? Should Brown be removed from Nickelodeon’s Kid’s Choice Awards? Should both of their sponsorships/endorsements be pulled because Brown attacked Rihanna and because Rihanna took Brown back?
Who cares? I am tired of being bombarded with this story. Rihanna and Brown are this generations Whitney/Bobby, Ike/Tina. I guess we feel that we need all the information on this story because to us, it’s juicy gossip. Like a car accident or train wreck, we can’t help but look. Because most of us want to know everything we can about the story, the paparazzi has went to such lengths as to even find and release the photos of a battered Rihanna that being used for the criminal investigation. That’s pretty low, even by paparazzi standards.
I still can’t wrap my head around why this is a news story worthy of all the pandemonium it has been given. Granted, I know that Rihanna and Brown are celebrities, but this amount of media attention is too much in my opinion. The story is everywhere and inescapable.
So because Rihanna is a celebrity, any right to privacy she might have had was immediately disregarded. Most journalists refuse to name victims of sexual abuse and domestic abuse in their reporting. I guess one positive is that because Rihanna has celebrity, it can help to put a face on domestic abuse and provide a role model for other women if she decides to separate from her attacker.
The same invasive reporting would not be done with a domestic abuse victim sans the celebrity of Rihanna. Rihanna has received "special treatment" which I’m fairly sure she (a) does not appreciate and (b) does not want.
Domestic abuse is a horrible thing. I feel bad for Rihanna for being the victim of such abuse and shun those who blaming her for taking him back; that is essentially blaming the victim. There are just too many factors to consider in her decision. And besides that, it’s none of our business anyways. This is largely a private matter that has been thrust in front of the eyes of the world.

Broken Promises Can’t Be Fixed with Super Glue

President Obama was elected on the message of hope and change. As recent events of his presidency unfold, we are learning more and more that his campaign promises are being broken. The message of change he once represented is really just "more of the same" that we experienced under former President Bush.
How did I arrive at this point? Well, I actually listened to the debates and the promises he made that helped get President Obama elected into office. I pay attention to his policies and what he has done throughout his short time as President. Need I remind you, President Obama accused Senator John McCain of being "more of the same", but in fact, President Obama has been quick to conform to the standards of the very political system he promised to reform.
John Stewart is one of the best comedians to scrutinize our nation’s politics. Most know that he is very liberal in his own ideology, however does a very good job of holding members of both parties equally accountable for their actions.
For instance, just the other day Stewart compared the remarks President Obama made regarding withdrawing from Iraq to remarks former President Bush made regarding the same subject. Upon comparing the two different speeches, from two different speech writers, from two different presidents, during two different periods of time, the message was almost exactly the same. Let me say that again... exactly the same.
The President who promised a speedy withdraw from Iraq has instead informed us he was going to keep about 35,000 troops in Iraq who would serve in the same advisory capacity the troops overseas are currently serving in. Broken promise number one.
Secondly, President Obama chastised the Bush administration for putting the nation into a large deficit during his time in office. The bailout package increases the deficit in one year what it took Bush five years to achieve. However, it was President Obama who promised financial responsibility and accountability. Broken promise number two.
President Obama also promised to reform pork spending, ear marks, pet projects, and wasteful spending during his campaign. However, with the federal budget at the threshold of his desk for signing, he has opted not to review each line item to remove wasteful spending. In fact, he has argued that because the budget bill was debated during Bush’s presidency, he should not be held liable for any pet projects and ear marking contained in the bill. Isn’t this the man that campaigned for change and yet he refuses to change the status quo? Sounds like broken promise number three to me.
But he has done some good. My wife and I will benefit from the $8,000 refundable tax credit for first time home buyers (which was originally a $7,500 loan from the government under Bush). So essentially, President Obama has helped me pocket a free $8,000. But when I think about this free money and how much my taxes will increase under the Obama administration, I begin to wonder at the end of his term, if my bank account will still be in the black or if it will be in the red (just like the state of our nation).
But hey, everything is okay so long as you and I don’t have to pay for it right now, right? Just our children and their children.