You are currently browsing the monthly archive for September 2008.
With the plethora of political ransacking and battling out-there, I have decided that I too shall join in the mud-slinging. While I have no direct officiation with any particular political party, I have decided to vote for John Mccain. The reason I have decided to do this is because I don’t agree with Obama’s positions; sure, he speaks eloquently and is a sharp as can be, but he just doesn’t cut it once you examine and scrutinize his political, economic, and ethical positions. Let me go though them – remember to keep an open mind to the real issues here and not some bangwagon-seeded emotions that you may possess.
1) Minimum wage
Obama favored the increase in the federal minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25, and he voted to end the filibuster against a bill to accomplish that.
-It appears to be a good thing that we -as a nation- should increase minimum wage. It seems to be something that is necessary especially when examining the current inflation and cost of living. However, is it really necessary? In free-market/capital system, the competition in the market aims at obtaining scarce resources, which includes: basic materials, land, energy, WORKERS, and consumers/clients. If the economy and government are functioning as they are intended, the minimum wage should be adjusted as the demand for workers increases. The problem is not raise the minimum wage as per law (especially since most people make more than 7.25/hr), but rather, industrialize and create more local jobs. So, we should not even have to talk about this any further as per it seems clear that the issue of “minimum wage” is not so much the “law” but rather the operation of the economy of the USA.
2) Education
In a July 2007 address to the National Education Association, Obama supported merit pay for teachers, to be based on standards to be developed “with teachers.”[15] Obama also called for higher pay for teachers.[15] Obama’s plan is estimated to cost $18 billion annually and was originally planned to be partially funded by delaying NASA’s Constellation program for five years[16] but he has since reconsidered and stated that he will look for “an entirely different offset”[17]. “We owe it to our children to invest in early-childhood education; and recruit an army of new teachers and give them better pay and more support; and finally decide that, in this global economy, the chance to get a college education should not be a privilege for the few, but a birthright of every American.” [18] He also opposes the teaching of intelligent design.
-I think that that education is perhaps one of the most important thing for the economy and for the future progression of the human race. I don’t disagree -flagrantly- with Obama here, but I do not fully support the former view. I think that we do need to raise teacher’s salaries but we need to do that in conjunction with improving HOW we educate our children. Obama has no vision on how that is to be achieved, he merely feels that we should, ” invest in their education” and then never mentions how, in what way, and when. Just pumping more money is not going to improve the education of our youth on a macro scale, we need to demand improved systems and verifications of actual progress; and if children are not desirous to progress, then we should insure correct action to aid them in this issue. Moreover, how can a nation with such debt problems obtain funding to do what Obama does? The answer -which he never blatantly admits to- is: property tax! So, by taking my right to private property ownership can be further risked by liens and imposition by the federal government!
3) Energy policy
In his New Energy for America plan, Obama proposes to reduce overall U.S. oil consumption by at least 35%, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030 in order to offset imports from OPEC nations.[20][21]
Obama voted in favor of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which provided incentives (chiefly tax breaks) to reduce national consumption of energy and to encourage a wide range of alternative energy sources. It also resulted in a net tax increase on oil companies.[24]
Obama and other Senators introduced the BioFuels Security Act in 2006. “It’s time for Congress to realize what farmers in America’s heartland have known all along – that we have the capacity and ingenuity to decrease our dependence on foreign oil by growing our own fuel,” Obama said.[25] In a May 2006 letter to President George W. Bush, he joined four other midwest farming state Senators in calling for the preservation of a $0.54-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol.[26]
In an interview with NBC’s Tim Russert on May 4, 2008, Obama said, “…we’ve got a serious food problem around the world. We, we’ve got rising food prices here in the United States.” “There’s no doubt that biofuelsmay be contributing to it. And what I’ve said is, my top priority is making sure that people are able to get enough to eat. And if it turns out that we’ve got to make changes in our ethanol policy to help people get something to eat, then that’s got to be the step we take.”[27]
Regarding the domestic use of nuclear power, about McCain´s plans for 45 new plants, Obama said that it’s not serious, it’s not new, it’s not the kind of energy policy that will give families the relief they need. Obama declared himself flatly opposed to building the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada.
Obama and other Senators introduced a bill in 2007 to promote the development of commercially viable plug-in hybrids and other electric-drive vehicles in order to shift away from petroleum fuels and “toward much cleaner – and cheaper – electricity for transportation”. Similar legislation is now in effect in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Obama proposes that the U.S. Government invest in such developments using revenue generated from an auction-based cap-and-trade or emissions trading program to reducegreenhouse gas emissions.
Obama stresses innovation as a means to improve energy efficiency, calling for a 50% improvement by 2030. He has called for a 50 mpg–U.S. (4.7 L/100 km / 60.1 mpg–imp) rule, proposing tax credits to automakers in order to ease the transition.
He opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
-To adequately respond to such a complicated subject like energy, I will proceed to address Obama’s points; and in doing so, I shall provide some counter-examples. First, Obama wishes to offset US oil consumption by employing systems of alternative fuel, so as to rid our dependency on foreign oil. I think that all americans wish to rid dependency, but is Bio-fuel the key? I don’t think so, studies show the with current infrastructure, growth seasons, land dispensability, and ability for mass-production equivalent to 30+% is doubtful. So, even with our best efforts to employ bio-fuel solutions, we would never be able to “weaned” of exterior oil imports. We need to employ a local combination of solutions which means DRILLING FOR OUR OWN OIL – AND REFINING IT, and using what systems of alternative energy that we can to alleviate the demand on our own oil structure. This view, however, creates a problem for Obama. The answer to the oil problem is not to take a hard left approach, but rather, employ all views and means so as to cut the umbilical cord of dependency to foreign oil. Moreover, we should invest more money in research and development of alternative systems of energy rather than try and exploit additional resources like plant-produced bio-fule.
Health care
On January 24, 2007 Obama spoke about his position on health care at Families USA, a health care advocacy group. Obama said, “The time has come for universal health care in America [...] I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country.” Obama went on to say that he believed that it was wrong that forty-seven million Americans are uninsured, noting that taxpayers already pay over $15 billion annually to care for the uninsured. Obama cites cost as the reason so many Americans are without health insurance. Obama’s health care plan includes implementing guaranteed eligibility for affordable health care for all Americans, paid for by insurance reform, reducing costs, removing patentprotection for pharmaceuticals, and required employer contributions.[42] He would provide for mandatory health care insurance for children.
In July 2008 The New York Times reported that Senator Obama has promised to “bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family.” His advisers have said that the $2,500 premium reduction includes, in addition to direct premium savings, the average family’s share of the reduction in employer paid health insurance premiums and the reduction in the cost of government health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
The Associated Press reported in September of 2008 that Senator Obama was proposing a National Health Insurance Exchange that would include both private insurance plans and a Medicare-like government run option. Coverage would be guaranteed regardless of health status, and premiums would not vary based on health status either. The campaign estimates the cost of the program at $60 billion annually. The plan requires that parents cover their children, but does not require adults to buy insurance.
-This is a very simple point to debunk. Barrack has claimed that americans pay 15 Billion to insure or aid the uninsured. However, he “new” and “genius” plan of health care reform would cost 60 billion annually! that is 45 Billion more annually.
These are just a few of what I perceive as incomplete and inaccurate.
From a professional perspective, you could say I am very familiar with the Realtor Association and Real Estate. I also, have had the opportunity to learn what is required to participate successfully in the world of Real Estate. However, I have never been able to agree with the value of a real-estate agent being a “Relator.” The best reason the NAR (National Association of Realtors) gives for the former is found here. These “reasons” are numbered 1-5 and are as follows,
1. A real estate transaction is complicated. In most cases, buying or selling a home requires disclosure forms, inspection reports, mortgage documents, insurance policies, deeds, and multi-page government-mandated settlement statements. A knowledgeable guide through this complexity can help you avoid delays or costly mistakes.
2. Selling or buying a home is time consuming. Even in a strong market, homes in our area stay on the market for an average of X days. And it usually takes another 60 days or so for the transaction to close after an offer is accepted.
3. Real estate has its own language. If you don’t know a CMA from a PUD, you can understand why it’s important to work with someone who speaks that language.
4. REALTORS® have done it before. Most people buy and sell only a few homes in a lifetime, usually with quite a few years in between each purchase. And even if you’ve done it before, laws and regulations change. That’s why having an expert on your side is critical.
5. REALTORS® provide objectivity. Since a home often symbolizes family, rest, and security, not just four walls and roof, home selling or buying is often a very emotional undertaking. And for most people, a home is the biggest purchase they’ll every make. Having a concerned, but objective, third party helps you keep focused on both the business and emotional issues most important to you.
I would like to show all those who read this post that the previous reasons are not very good ones. For example, #1. In number 1, we find a certain explicative statement that intends to intimidate the reader. Its objective is to make the reader not feel qualified or able to close a real-estate transaction. However, there are many sources that are able to help a person close virtually any real-estate transaction with ease. One thing that helps the former is the fact that most -if not all- purchase agreements and similar contracts are all online. Additionally, the method to closing a deal is located on most state’s Department of Commerce or Division of Real-estate web pages. Also there is a valuable source of aid for the average home-buyer that does wish to sell his[er] home, that is a TITLE COMPANY… In fact, if you were to investigate and penetrate the “exclusivity” of what realtors do, you will quickly find that the title company does the majority of the actual sales logistics and paperwork (actually, many Realtors and sales agents don’t even know how to fill out HUDs or any other closing work).
Moving on to number 2… Selling or buying a home is time consuming. This is something that appeals to the “inconvenience” of time requirements placed upon the buyer or seller of a home. 2’s objective is to dissuade you from trying to do it yourself because you are so occupied. However, even though selling or buying a home requires time -just as anything does- it is not an all-consuming endeavor. Actually, with the invent of title companies, online-sales brokerages, and the internet, that time can be worth it (especially, if you plan on saving 3-6% )
I don’t even feel like addressing 3. I think that anyone who falls for this one should be hit on the head with a tack hammer, or become a slave and do as you are told.
Number 4 is almost overly humorous. I agree that if you are attempting to acquire a multi-million dollar property or a huge development/investment, it is probably good that you consult a lawyer and not a Realtor about what the laws are; but, if you are just looking to buy or sell a personal dwelling, investment property, or a piece of land, the resources are there to help you fulfill that.
Number 5 is a joke. The objectivity that a Realtor provides should not matter -[s]he is not buying the home you are. The importance of owning your own home is based upon the collective taste of your family and not the individual Realtor (especially when they want the most expensive home that you can afford; talk about conflict of interest).
The Realtor Association is attempting to manipulate you, so they can expand the influence that they have over the local agents of the industry -which, in turn, aids them in facilitating their lobbying objectives. Moreover, most agents/Realtors don’t have your best interest at heart, they are more worried -deep down- about the money that you are going to give them. Having said that, I think that one, with some study, could show that the influence incompetent and dishonest Realtors have had on innocent and naive home owners, has contributed to the current situation in our housing market.
If you want to sell your home, put a sign outside. Place it on the internet, send some flyers to local mortgage brokers and banks. Post some information in public areas and on some particular web pages. Also, you can pay some marketing companies and “real-estate magazines” a fee and market your property just as well as a Realtor and not pay the staggering 4-8%!
Recent Comments