We are looking at an historic election next week. One that will shift the future of our country in one of two ways:
Redistribution
or
Capitalism
The choice is yours. If you believe that we should all be at the mercy of the government, relying on them for more and more (even those of us who work), you will vote for Obama. If you believe that health care is a RIGHT and should be provided by a nearly bankrupt government, you will vote for Obama. If you believe that the rich in this country do not contribute by building business and creating jobs (and by innovating and giving back to the communities, etc), then you will vote for Obama.
When you vote for Obama, you can expect that the deficit will continue to grow at an alarming rate, that we will be in a financial situation much like Greece, that our dependence on foreign credit will continue to grow, that our government will continue to ignore the Constitution and operate without a budget, that other elements of the Constitution will continue to be ignored, that fiscal responsibility will be ignored.
Romney is not perfect. However, he is a stronger leader, he believes in capitalism, he has a responsibility to repeal obamacare. Those three things alone are enough for me to vote for him.
There are two choices. Please, vote for the one who will restore America to who we should be. I don't want any more of Obama's change.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Presidential Debate Recap
I have so many things to cover, and I will try to be brief, but it may be impossible!
New sources of energy sounds great - however we have seen Obama's approach to this and it didn't work. How does he get it to work in the future? How much money will it cost.
On the subject of Education:
Obama has a plan; he wants to reduce student aid at colleges who do not contain their costs. He also wants to cut tuition in half. However, there is no information about how he wishes to do this, another empty promise. Cutting student aid at colleges, ok I see that they may make a difference, especially when colleges would lose student population to those other colleges.
Obama also claims that he has capped repayment at 10% of your income. How is this, when my expected payment is nearly $500 per month while my husband's income (I don't have any) is only $31000 a year? Perhaps I don't know what 10% he is using...
Is that just a bold-faced lie?
Obama has increased Head Start programs. I guess this is a non-issue because I believe that these programs are just the government saying that if you are poor you can't teach your children their colors. Many programs that benefit the poor or lower income families assume that if you don't make a lot of money you are stupid or don't know how to parent. I will be first to admit that there are people out there who don't know how to parent, but they aren't all poor!
Obama has worked with community colleges to help train people for work. This is fine, if people are willing or able to go to classes to learn how to do something that an employer could train them to do, at a much cheaper rate. What do these programs entail? I can tell you, as a job seeker, that no one is hiring people with 2-year degrees. Those are basically worthless now unless it is for plumbing, HVAC, or other trades.
For K-12 education, Obama wants to recruit 100,000 new math and science teachers. That sounds fun, however it is just more proof that the only people who he believes should be on payroll is through a government job, or one funded by the government. Sometimes, more teachers doesn't mean better education. Without accountability and parent led responsibility, there are few students out there who will succeed, no matter what neighborhood they live in.
www.barackobama.com/plans/education
Interesting look at tuition costs:
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Articles/Education_Inflation.asp
Romney also has a plan. He wants to allow parents to make more choices about where they send their children to school. In order to do this, he wants to make school's performance available to parents. That sounds good, and would make the schools who are doing worse lose funding by lowering their student counts. Some schools would possibly be closed so that the better schools would thrive. It is uncomfortable, but it could work to the students' advantage.
He also wants to build on success of charter schools. In higher education, he wants simplify the financial aid system which sounds like he wants to cut the amount of federal dollars available. If you read the information available in the previous link, it sounds like too much money available is one reason tuition has increased dramatically in the past ten years. Because of the amount of money available, colleges can charge outrageous prices. One more example of what happens when the government pays for (or helps pay for) something. The price goes up. Government workers get paid more than most private sector employees, government contracts pay more than most private contracts would pay, etc. When the government is involved, the price does not go down, it goes up.
Encouraging the private sector to be involved is a good move. Instead of interest dollars going to the government, it could go to businesses...businesses that hire. Banks would have to compete with low interest rates to get borrowers.
I think that the student loan situation is becoming remarkably similar to the home loan situation before the bottom collapsed. What is going to happen in the next 10 years when no one can pay back their student loans? I can tell you this: we've only seen a portion of the problem. There is a lot more to come as more and more students are graduating with no job in sight.
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/education
I will end with this, and I will continue later on another subject. I am not finished disecting this.
This is one thing: I am sick of hearing the left say that the rich don't produce jobs. One question.
IF THE RICH DON'T PRODUCE JOBS, WHO DOES?
If we tax these rich people, who have the money and the stability to take risks like start new business ventures, if we tax them at a much higher rate, what will happen? They will have less money to hire people in their homes, they will have less money to try something new in their businesses. Speaking of, it's not just about what their businesses do, it's about the work they give to landscaping companies, to people cleaning their homes, to people who build and maintain their homes. These are the people who pay people to do things. Those are called JOBS!!!!
At what point does this not make sense?
New sources of energy sounds great - however we have seen Obama's approach to this and it didn't work. How does he get it to work in the future? How much money will it cost.
On the subject of Education:
Obama has a plan; he wants to reduce student aid at colleges who do not contain their costs. He also wants to cut tuition in half. However, there is no information about how he wishes to do this, another empty promise. Cutting student aid at colleges, ok I see that they may make a difference, especially when colleges would lose student population to those other colleges.
Obama also claims that he has capped repayment at 10% of your income. How is this, when my expected payment is nearly $500 per month while my husband's income (I don't have any) is only $31000 a year? Perhaps I don't know what 10% he is using...
Is that just a bold-faced lie?
Obama has increased Head Start programs. I guess this is a non-issue because I believe that these programs are just the government saying that if you are poor you can't teach your children their colors. Many programs that benefit the poor or lower income families assume that if you don't make a lot of money you are stupid or don't know how to parent. I will be first to admit that there are people out there who don't know how to parent, but they aren't all poor!
Obama has worked with community colleges to help train people for work. This is fine, if people are willing or able to go to classes to learn how to do something that an employer could train them to do, at a much cheaper rate. What do these programs entail? I can tell you, as a job seeker, that no one is hiring people with 2-year degrees. Those are basically worthless now unless it is for plumbing, HVAC, or other trades.
For K-12 education, Obama wants to recruit 100,000 new math and science teachers. That sounds fun, however it is just more proof that the only people who he believes should be on payroll is through a government job, or one funded by the government. Sometimes, more teachers doesn't mean better education. Without accountability and parent led responsibility, there are few students out there who will succeed, no matter what neighborhood they live in.
www.barackobama.com/plans/education
Interesting look at tuition costs:
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Articles/Education_Inflation.asp
Romney also has a plan. He wants to allow parents to make more choices about where they send their children to school. In order to do this, he wants to make school's performance available to parents. That sounds good, and would make the schools who are doing worse lose funding by lowering their student counts. Some schools would possibly be closed so that the better schools would thrive. It is uncomfortable, but it could work to the students' advantage.
He also wants to build on success of charter schools. In higher education, he wants simplify the financial aid system which sounds like he wants to cut the amount of federal dollars available. If you read the information available in the previous link, it sounds like too much money available is one reason tuition has increased dramatically in the past ten years. Because of the amount of money available, colleges can charge outrageous prices. One more example of what happens when the government pays for (or helps pay for) something. The price goes up. Government workers get paid more than most private sector employees, government contracts pay more than most private contracts would pay, etc. When the government is involved, the price does not go down, it goes up.
Encouraging the private sector to be involved is a good move. Instead of interest dollars going to the government, it could go to businesses...businesses that hire. Banks would have to compete with low interest rates to get borrowers.
I think that the student loan situation is becoming remarkably similar to the home loan situation before the bottom collapsed. What is going to happen in the next 10 years when no one can pay back their student loans? I can tell you this: we've only seen a portion of the problem. There is a lot more to come as more and more students are graduating with no job in sight.
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/education
I will end with this, and I will continue later on another subject. I am not finished disecting this.
This is one thing: I am sick of hearing the left say that the rich don't produce jobs. One question.
IF THE RICH DON'T PRODUCE JOBS, WHO DOES?
If we tax these rich people, who have the money and the stability to take risks like start new business ventures, if we tax them at a much higher rate, what will happen? They will have less money to hire people in their homes, they will have less money to try something new in their businesses. Speaking of, it's not just about what their businesses do, it's about the work they give to landscaping companies, to people cleaning their homes, to people who build and maintain their homes. These are the people who pay people to do things. Those are called JOBS!!!!
At what point does this not make sense?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)