Showing posts with label 2012 presidential campaign. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012 presidential campaign. Show all posts

Monday, August 20, 2012

New Voters Must Think About VP Picks 2012


There is a lot of talk about Paul Ryan since his announcement as Mitt Romney’s VP pick. The talk has not been all good especially from partisan democrats. The criticism ranges from Paul Ryan is too young to being uncaring toward seniors and the needy. I personally think Paul Ryan was a stroke of genius by Mitt. He is caring in the fact that he is trying to save this nation from bankruptcy by being the one person willing to address the difficult budget issues we must face as a nation.

Paul Ryan has placed all the chips on black, and that black is the federal budget. The federal budget is sinking in red debt, and Paul Ryan is the author of a budget that addresses the areas in the budget that must be reformed in order to get back into a semblance of black. He addresses the biggest entitlement, Medicare, with thoughtfulness to current seniors, and the need for choices in the future for the younger folks to save the program.

Paul Ryan is a man that is not afraid to state the obvious and then defend it with details and plans that are easy to understand. He treats his position in government as any adult would. He is not afraid of the political backlash because he has done his homework and knows how to address any question thrown his way with a confident grasp of every detail because he has taken the time to study the facts.

In contrast, Joe Biden is the “junkyard dog” of Obama’s campaign. He is given his marching orders and goes out and does what he is told. Joe Biden has made gaffe after gaffe, and each time the media discounts it as “oh it’s just Joe Biden being Joe Biden.” That would be OK if he wasn’t a heartbeat away from being president.

The media has not done its job of vetting either President Obama or Joe Biden. Joe Biden is considered one of the most jovial politicians in Washington DC but is he prepared or capable of being president? Would you be more comfortable with a Paul Ryan presidency or a Joe Biden presidency? Joe Biden is not a very smart man. It is proven everyday he speaks and is backed up by his college transcripts. Paul Ryan is a very smart man and it is backed up every time he speaks and his college transcripts.

If the left wants to compare the VP slot I say bring it on. They have tried to paint a scary picture of Paul Ryan but they are finding it hard to do because the picture they are painting is not supported by the facts. The more the media focuses on Ryan and Biden the more aware the voters become about the scary possibility of Joe Biden becoming president.

And that is a truly scary thought: Joe Biden as president? The left should return to the failed attempt to paint Mitt Romney as the successful business man he is. The Obama campaign is imploding because they have nothing to run on and the two incumbent candidates are truly scary for this country. Neither has the right stuff to lead this nation to prosperity.

Just watch the two campaigns and what you see is two accomplished men, and two men with little accomplishment…

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Capitalism Works Every Time…

If you replace the word capitalism with “individual choice” you start to understand the reason we are so prosperous as a nation and people. This election cycle we are seeing a very dangerous tactic by the president and his supporters by demonizing “capitalism.” In the view of too many Americans, Capitalism has become a negative word. As a nation there is no quicker path to the bottom than to bite the system that feeds the prosperity we enjoy.

“Individual choice” to engage in trade with others works best because the individuals involved in the transaction know what is the best outcome of that transaction. The two parties assess the others offer and decide if it is worth the exchange of value to each party. An example would be a person needs food and a farmer needs a barn. The farmer and the carpenter decide what the value is in the transaction. The carpenter may ask for 6 months’ worth of corn in exchange for building a barn. If that trade is acceptable the two parties transact business. If not they either renegotiate or find another person that will find the transaction terms acceptable. The final transaction will be the result of “market” principles in action. Individuals decide for themselves the value of goods in the market.

The introduction of a third party like government into the market to decide what the “price” for goods and services is and the way they are distributed is socialism. A third party decides how much time people need to spend working and what wage they will receive for that time “spent” on the job. This third party is not part of the transaction except for the part of deciding how the transactions will take place and how the terms will be distributed. No matter what the individuals in the transaction think about the terms, the terms remain the same (“equal”). If those terms are not acceptable to the parties the parties remove themselves from the “market’ and the market stalls, and dwindles away. Nothing gets done and things stagnate or more likely a “black market” is created to get around the third party arbiter.

The economy and the world revolves around billions of “individual choice” transactions that all together make up a vibrant economy. The reason the “individual choice” model is so efficient is because people will only do the transactions that make sense to their individual circumstances. They make the best choice for themselves and their families. They control the choices they make and every transaction adjusts based on the needs of “individual choice.”

There are times when “individual choice” is “cruel” to the other party by rejecting what they have to offer. But unlike a system like socialism that attempts to force the transaction to move forward, in the “individual choice” model that rejected party must rethink, retool, reduce the price, (or many other possibilities), make a change that is acceptable to the other party.  It forces changes that can result in failure but can also result in a more efficient offer or product. It forces people to be creative, diligent, hardworking and in a word it is competitive. The strong survive and the weak either change or fail.

So even though socialism touts “fairness” it is not fair at all. It distorts the “individual choice” and replaces it with forced transactions. It never works for a greater length than individuals figure a way to work around it or stop working at all. So the next time you hear someone criticize capitalism ask them if they believe in “individual choice”? Most likely they will and then explain that capitalism is a system of individual choices which produces the best outcomes for all willing to work hard in our society…

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

The Problem with Jimmy Carter…

When you say Jimmy Carter to someone in my generation the immediate reaction is “worst president in modern American history.” He is synonymous with failure to us and we turn the channel whenever he finds an audience in the main stream media.

Carter has spent his post presidency trying to change history. But history is a stubborn thing. Kinda like facts, the country was leaderless under his administration which is why Obama is being compared to Carter. The country again feels like there is no leadership from the current president. The presidency is first and foremost the chief morale officer of the country. We believe in ourselves but we always feel better when we know our elected chief executive believes that as well.

Both Carter and Obama blame Americans for the ills of failed government policies. They both have lectured us on how we just need to get over ourselves and do what they say we should do. Nothing angers Americans more than being lectured to by our politicians especially when they barely understand how hard we Americans work, every day.

Any of us that lived under Carter believe that comparisons will definitely undermine this president’s chance for re-election. The problem is that Jimmy Carter’s administration was over 30 years ago. There are a lot of new voters that have never lived under Carter and see him as the X President that builds houses for humanity and seems like someone’s grandfather. These new voters do not immediately think failure when Carter’s name is used.

I am not saying we should stop comparing Obama to Carter. No I think it’s part of an overall strategy. We must reach younger voters by highlighting how conservative and constitutional principles lead to greater opportunities for jobs and a successful future. We need a positive message for young folks who spend little time thinking and too much time feeling. They might feel good that the first Black President was elected during their generation but the Presidency is not to be used as a social experiment. The presidency is about competent leadership from an executive that has earned the experience necessary to make decisions. It is also a position that can only be granted to individuals that believe in our constitution and founding principles.

We need to help our youth understand what has given us the wealth they enjoy today, our constitution, individual ingenuity, freedom and capitalism. It wasn’t Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, or Obama. It was the American people unencumbered by government bureaucracy given the freedom to pursue their dreams and be held accountable for failure, the ability to reap the rewards of their ideas and hard work, and willingness to take risks…