It seems as if it was destined for me to have come across this particular article. The article is titled Taking the National Debt Seriously, and it was posted on the Power Line blog on 10/13/09. Here is a link to the editorial. It urges citizens to become aware of our national debt and the repercussions possibly stemming from it.
The author who simply goes by John, urges the public to become aware of our national debt and the interest created from it. He feels that we need to stop adding to that debt, since it will cause us to eventually default or create hyperinflation. The interest off our national debt for the year is $383 billion alone; While the Government revenue from individual income taxes is only $904 billion. Meaning the cost of interest on the debt represented more than 40 cents of every dollar that came in from individual income taxes created.
Still with all that, the Government still wants to create more social programs that we can't afford. It's what I've been thinking about all along about these social reform programs and stimulus packages. The Cost is too high for the country as a whole and is only such a petty and short lived benefit for each person. What's $600 really going to do for each person to change their economic situation? In turn $787 billion added to our national debt is a huge cost to pay. Within the last year the trade deficit has almost tripled going from around $500 billion to $1.4 trillion.
It almost seems as if this is being done intentionally by someone or a joint group to wipe out the average American citizens power so then they can gain control of the whole country much easier. Bottom line is people need to realize this and start saying no to these immediate, futile benefits which in the long run will only hurt everyone much more than any good they ever did.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Limiting greenhouse emissions good or bad for business?
I Began scrolling through my search results posted on the New York Times website, and then one jumped out from the rest. It was titled Way Behind the Curve. Here is a link to the editorial. The article was posted on 9/29/09 by an unspecified author: it argues that the United States Chamber of Commerce is falling behind the competition due to it's history of opposing emission regulations, and how that's bad for business and is only setting them back.
The author cites how the this year the United States Chamber of Commerce testified against the House-passed bill limiting greenhouse gases. Also having attacked the Lieberman-Warner bill with a spicy commercial in the last Congress. The author also feels almost certain they they will oppose other such similar measures to be introduced this week. While believing the United States Chamber of Commerce opposes the Environmental Protections Agency's plan to use regulatory means to control emissions. Stating how one official demanded for a “Scopes monkey trial” questioning the science behind the agency's preliminary findings that greenhouse emissions endanger human lives.
After such events a few of their prominent chamber members have announced their intentions of quitting the group.These companies are members of the United States Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of businesses and environmental groups which helped shape the House bill earlier this year.
With all that being done by the United States Chamber of Commerce to curb emission regulations; they still have the audacity to post on their website that the group supports “a comprehensive legislative solution” to global warming. When the author and I both feel they have only undermined efforts to do so.
With that being said, don't claim to be on board when your track record shows constant betrayal. All in all, I agree that being environmentally friendly these days is good for business and that opposing such measures will set your business back. So the question becomes, "how does the United States Chamber of Commerce change their impression from adversary to ally after a history of opposition?
The author cites how the this year the United States Chamber of Commerce testified against the House-passed bill limiting greenhouse gases. Also having attacked the Lieberman-Warner bill with a spicy commercial in the last Congress. The author also feels almost certain they they will oppose other such similar measures to be introduced this week. While believing the United States Chamber of Commerce opposes the Environmental Protections Agency's plan to use regulatory means to control emissions. Stating how one official demanded for a “Scopes monkey trial” questioning the science behind the agency's preliminary findings that greenhouse emissions endanger human lives.
After such events a few of their prominent chamber members have announced their intentions of quitting the group.These companies are members of the United States Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of businesses and environmental groups which helped shape the House bill earlier this year.
With all that being done by the United States Chamber of Commerce to curb emission regulations; they still have the audacity to post on their website that the group supports “a comprehensive legislative solution” to global warming. When the author and I both feel they have only undermined efforts to do so.
With that being said, don't claim to be on board when your track record shows constant betrayal. All in all, I agree that being environmentally friendly these days is good for business and that opposing such measures will set your business back. So the question becomes, "how does the United States Chamber of Commerce change their impression from adversary to ally after a history of opposition?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)