Out-sourcing our economy

Soap-boxing

This is a great article not only for Check the box rules but also for out sourcing. I think to achieve maximum results in both theaters we could lower domestic taxes on industry while levying taxes opposed to outsourcing thereby creating a very attractive model for domestic business.  

Outsourcing over the last decade has been mainly in telecommunication industries along with several other technology based businesses. why this is a problem is that these clean industries pump millions of dollars into economies where they are located along with stimulating other industries around them. 

I think outsourcing and the tax revenue involved is a major issue that our political leaders should address.

Isolationism

There is in my mind an issue that our generation must address, one that is more important than global warming or universal healthcare. Foreign policy is at the forefront of my concern for modern government, I like the leaders of America from its founding to the conclusion of World War II  think that with our great power comes a great responsibility not to police the world or mold it according to our own design but to regulate and stimulate from afar. That may sound confusing and I would like to clarify my stance, first by explaining the historic role of America in the world and second by discussing the things that have lead to a vastly expanding foreign policy. 

The first and most important reason I believe that we should shift our policy back to isolationism is the simple fact that from 1776 until 1944 America as a nation was set in staunch isolationism this is the reason we did not join World War II at its onset but only after A direct attack on our soil, In 1812 a war started for the unlawful press gang of men from American ships into a war that was not our own, there is a pattern in almost every engagement America takes part in and it is almost always defensive in posture up to the onset of the Korean War at which point we abandoned the proven formula to become world police. This need to be involved in every facet of the world has led only to hatred from outsiders and the needless deaths of our soldiers fighting for people that generally do not appreciate or want our help or occupation. 

I guess my major hang up on our foreign policy is that we have poverty, homeless and crime inside our own borders, why do we overlook those in need in our own country and stick our nose in the business of other countries. I can tell you where and why it all began how afraid of communism we became in the 70's during the red scare we had two options, strengthen abroad which we did or fortify at home which we were made to feel like we did, but the simple fact is that the government has spent and continues to spend billions on conflicts to support governments that will embrace us, this is an erroneous action that has already backfired more than once. I can point to Afghanistan, Korea, and even the communist party in power in China as governments we have financially supported and to what end, can we rely on any of these countries if we were to need the aide? I think not.

I think we should return to a very basic foreign policy, a policy reminiscent of the stance taken by those that have prospered before us. Isolationism does not mean we cannot lend a hand to those in need, but it does mean we will be more responsible with our military and more responsible to accept the way other peoples in the world may choose to govern. 

response

You have raised some interesting points, and i agree that maybe bailing out the auto industry is not our best option. While I do not believe we should have just handed off billions of dollars to the auto industry i do think simply allowing them to wither and die would be a death nail in our economy. 

There are a few reasons why allowing the companies to die would hurt us deeply first as you have mentioned the japanese automakers have done a great job in creating efficient and cheaply produced cars, you will notice I have excluded mentioning chinese automakers, that is because there is no major chinese auto industry (toyota, nissan, honda, and Hyundai are all japanese. If we shift all of our car buying needs to foreign companies there is no difference than relying on foreign oil, we will be slowly bleeding the country of assets and create a much bigger problem in the future. 

Another point I must disagree with you on is the "reek of communism" you have mentioned. I could define communism here but I think we all know what it means, and handing money out to automakers is the exact opposite, where communism amputates any weak sector like a gangrenous limb and we are supporting companies that have simply over extended in credit. Our government will never change from democracy and at the moment democracy has decided to shell out the cash, thus we must accept this until we can vote a new power if we need to at all. 

Where I would have gone different in the bail out terms would have been a series of loans that charged interest on the companies bailed out, such that we(tax payers) as investors should see a return and the companies themselves must be more responsible with spent funds as they all must be repaid.

The deficit

 I am an accounting major, I am an American citizen, I am tired of hearing about the national debt. If you have been following the news of late you have heard of the 192 billion dollar deficit the Obama administration has racked up. While it is true that a deficit is not ideal for a national economy it is not however rare or really that important. There is a maxim along the lines of "you must spend money to make money" interesting dont you think? 

Our market economy is very complex and generally based on consumer confidence, this can make things very fickle the primary problem is that the government creates policy in order to limit or stimulate things like lending, manufacturing taxes and guidelines to raise or lower unemployment rates these are just a few of policies that effect our economy and the way our banks function. Why is this a problem? Well there is no flaw in the way our government spends to stimulate or contract monetary policy the problem arises when we try and play the government. 

The playing of our government is really when those in power or seeking power publish articles or news stories vilifying budget deficits or government spending solely to weaken consumer confidence so at election time we the people have a lesser public opinion of those currently making our policy. So what can we do? I think it is important that we look at more than just the headlines of deficit and wasteful spending, I think we need to look at where we are as a nation and where we want to be and choose leadership and policy makers based on intelligent decision rather than just transferring wealth from party to party.  

Critique of "Global Hysteria"

An article I recently read at Fox Forum explains in detail the thought that global warming is nothing more than a way to redistribute global wealth. The author claims that global warming is a scam that was produced so he legislation could be produced favoring greener technologies, this favoritism of policy will lead to an transfer of wealth away from big oil. The author uses as his credibility the new budget plan proposed by Obama that offers healthy tax credits for carbon emissions these can be bought by companies that produce large amounts of carbon or sold by companies that do not produce these emissions.  The author uses a foreboding tone the entire piece which serves to highlight the general darkness of our future if we continue on this path, also the author seem to be very instant that there is no global warming at all. Overall i do agree with the author on this matter I think the piece is a bit ineffective at reaching the targeted audience of older politically active readers that need a less biased article to make an informed decision.   

The future health plan and your pocket book

The future of our economy may be in doubt when viewed from the prospective of the masses, however our healthcare future seems to have had a foundation poured during this crisis. At http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/nation/02/26/0226obama.html there is an article discussing the outline for the new taxes that will provide funding for a universal healthcare plan. 

The targeted audience of this particular piece is the middle class American this claim is based upon the fact that the writer looks favorably upon this controversial issue, also the fact that the author mentions the wealthiest 35 % in much of a distant fashion only i.e. as a number or corporation rather than a person with a specific name. 

The writers use quoted tax law and policy to assign credibility for the argument which is supported by purely logical number, percentages and facts, this supports bodes well for the position because it almost seems that this is a neutral article meaning that some one against healthcare reform could read it without offense or being driven from the page by overly strong connotations. The claim is straight forward and I can quote it directly from the article and is as follows "Everyone agrees that all Americans deserve access to affordable health care." This is obviously a band wagon appeal relying on popularity and is just placed at the end of the article so as not to run the reader off but to define a clear position and motive for the piece.

personally I identify with this article it presents the facts fairly and unbiased but it is not just a news flash, in fact it presents the facts in such a way that the reader can make a decision that is not heavily influence but does offer a mainstream opinion so one can feel the pulse of our nation in regards to the healthcare future.  

 

The ugly side of party politics

I would like to point out an article I read today about the economic stimulus plan, at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/us/politics/14web-stim.html?_r=1&ref=politics. This is not however a response to the plan itself or even the economic strife our country or world is facing today, in fact this is a foray into our nations political party system. You may ask how I can draw part undertones from a simple stimulus article. The most simplistic answer is a sentence found that reads as follows, "Hours earlier, the package cleared the House easily, albeit without Republican support." I draw your attention to this sentence in particular not so point out that the bill was facing opposition but to underline the solidarity of the Republican opposition to the plan, the parties use this tactic for one simple purpose complete deniability, or the ability to take no responsibility for the plan itself. This is done so that if the plan does not work completely finger pointing can begin and one party can weaken the other. many may call this political savvy or just good strategy, I myself think this is an extremely harmful action that weakens not only our governmental process but sows seeds of doubt. While this article is not the only place where party lines do more harm than good but it is a major fulcrum in the modern division in our government that stands in the way of progress. 

In summation I strongly believe that for our political leader to lead America into a prosperous and long lasting future we must shed the shackles of party lines and allow government process to revolve solely on the issues and how the good of the whole will progress rather than how to garnish power from on party to the other.