McCain will help the free market. Obama will destroy it.

Published on June 17, 2008 By jesseledesma In Politics

Alegria Online Mall: A place with something for everyone.

*****************************************************************

I am pleased to announce these new merchants Skymall Inc, Netflix, jbandme (female apparel), and Lego

@ Alegria Online Mall.

*****************************************************************************

What do you believe in when you live in a society that values nothing? I work in an industry plagued by people with no morality and respect for business. However, I have stated many times that it is not my business how much cab drivers in downtown el paso charge the customer.

The city of stupid el paso texas thinks it has the right to set the prices for the service self-employed cab drivers working in private industry provide to the public. In fact, most people think that they know how much taxi service should cost. Well, it is our business and the correct price is the price the seller asks for, not what the consumer thinks.

My dilemma is that I am surrounded by men of 50 plus years who behave like 15 year old hard core gang members. Their business plan is we are going to take the trip even if we are not first in line and we are going to charge what we want no matter what anyone says. Again none of these is my problem except that these people think I am going to let them steal from me and not say anything.

Now the communist government of el paso provides taxi inspectors. However, these four inspectors only know how to cash their paychecks. Rarely do they post them selves at the taxi stand long enough to discourage these cab drives from their gang like behaviors.

These people are receiving a paycheck they should do the job. Everyone who takes a job and the money should do the job. However, these individuals answer to anything is to play politics with issues. Every time I make a cab driver who wants to charge what he is not suppose to leave the line the majority go running to the taxi inspectors crying about how I am harassing them.

**********************************************************************************

Sierra Trading Post, iTunes, and Time Life are announcing some favorite products and some New Deals.

******************************************************************************************************

My response is well they are charging what city ordinance says they cannot. The taxi inspectors just shrug their shoulders. Now there is a war between me , the other cab drivers, and the taxi inspectors. Cab drivers in el paso for the most part are low-lifes with no morality what so ever. However, taxi inspectors are city employees with responsibilities who should be doing their job regardless of their personal opinions.

My other option is the police. However, is el paso the police officers believe they are only going to enforce the laws that appeal to them. Most of the time a person calls them for assistance, if it is something the cops do not want to do, they make the person complaining the problem and start harassingly them. By harassing I mean yelling at the person, insulting the person with bad words, provoking the person to do something that will get him or her in trouble, and even filing false charges.

This brings me to my central point. Systems in society do not function. I am sure we all have complaints about government workers not working. Today, however it is critical. When police officers think they do not have to respond to cries for help from the public, criminals run wild. Then people start taking the law in to their own hands.

Before, you know it you have full blown anarchy. Several years ago the city of stupid el paso installed cameras at red lights to catch people who run red lights. Even with big signs that say "camera enforced", on average 5000 people run these red lights a month.

That is the human condition. It is my way no matter what any one thinks. In Obama and McCain we see two people with the "it's my way" mentality. I cannot trust McCain because in my opinion he will say or do anything to get elected. I do not respect Obama because he supports the murder of the unborn and cannot see that people's poverty is the result of people's own actions.

No one makes any one poor. In the land of opportunity no one has an excuse for failing. However, we allows our selves to be convinced that only one kind of life will do for us. In addition, if we do not get that life we throw a tantrum and refuse to work at anything.

Is this really behavior government should be encouraging? I see it as unproductive. Facilitating people's poor attitude will not solve poverty it will only increase it. When a person has been beat up by parents, siblings, and life, any excuse to give up will do.

This is a critical time in America. Parents are excusing them selves from their responsibility to educate their children. The end result is people who respect nothing and work hard at destroying everything. These type of people cannot make quality choices about the leadership of the most important country in the world.

Petty politics will harm the US. We have to go beyond a sense of "I have to help my guy win". The correct choice is a person who can lead with vision and honor. I contend that it is wrong to turn over the spoils of success to people who have proven they only know how to fail.

It is better for everyone to know that the way to provide for one's self is through work. I guess this is the determining factor for me in choosing between McCain and Obama. McCain will not interfere with free market economy which creates the jobs people need to earn money to feed themselves.

I know McCain has been talking about regulating CEO's salaries. This is wrong and very unlikely that McCain would try to actually interfere in the salaries of Americans.

Obama on the other hand has told us all that he plans to tax and spend. Obama wants universal healthcare. He wants to bail out people who bought more home that they could afford. He wants to help the jobless and homeless. In addition, he wants to help anyone who has ever suffered and been done wrong by life.

This is not the job of government. Government is only suppose to be in charge of basic services like garbage collection, police, fire, medical, and military. It is not the job of government to gift a life to everyone.

Furthermore, the majority of Americans are hard working and productive citizens. Again, I will state that only around 15 percent of American population represent people who cannot provide for them selves. The other 85 percent chooses to work.

In addition, many people are poor money managers. Every day in America people are choosing to get into credit card debt. Is this my problem? Should I be forced to pay their bills? Furthermore, isn't freeing these people from their responsibilities only encouraging their bad behaviors. When will people learn to be personally responsible, if government keeps bailing them out everything they mess up their lives?

Moreover, in these critical times can we afford to generate more people with a bad attitude who only want to destroy? Many years ago I wrote about how our generation is not the last generation. I see thousands of years still ahead for humanity.

If the human race keeps going in the direction it is going life will not have any value. However, life always has value and we have to defend it with quality choices, not our bad attitude and desire to destroy.

*********************************************

Alibris books is still offering 90% savings.

Luggage Online is offering 70% in savings.

***************************************************************************

Technorati Tags: Obama,McCain,free,market,economy,poor,credit,card,debt,homeless,jobless,election,2008

Comments (Page 1)

Azraptor85

on Jul 01, 2008

Yep the Bush years sure were great huh? record spending , adding to the deficit high gas prices and high unemployment , yeah republicans do great with the economy lets give them 8 more years to see how more screwed up things can get. god forbid obama takes us back to the prosperity of the 90's , that would be horrible.

Cikomyr

on Jul 03, 2008

record spending , adding to the deficit high gas prices and high unemployment

Record economic development caused by over-indebtment by most of the citizens. You forgot that one. Problem is, all of it was merely a bubble. When credit crashed, the bubble popped.

Scotteh

on Jul 04, 2008

I work in an industry plagued by people with no morality and respect for business

This was an interesting perspective really, i think much of the problem with society todays is that buisness itself is a means to conduct oneself away from the usual model of social morality, being rude and abrupt, direct and uncompashionte are often considered good buisness practice's.

You then go on to say that the job of goverment is not to look after those whom are not performing well in society. I think this is a ridiculous notion, and one that has led to many a disaster in huamnity.

Karl Marx witnessed, during the industrial revolution in England, Manchester, extreme levels of poverty and how the goverement and society had litteraly left these peopel behind. Marx used these influences to attack the captalistic approach to society and we all know how that ended up.

Captalisim needs to take responsiblity for those it leaves behind, and believe you me it does. At the same time there are those that just want an easy ticket, it is often a grey area to distinguish between the two, that is not to say however that we shouldn't try.

Worse still to ignore it, leaves captailisim open to attack at the fundemental level and runs a risk of it imploding on itself just as Marx predicted.

Paladin77

on Jul 08, 2008

Yep the Bush years sure were great huh? record spending , adding to the deficit high gas prices and high unemployment

If I recall when Mr. Clinton was president he touted his 5.5% unemployment as the lowest in history. We just went up to 5.2% and we were at a low of 4.8% during the Bush Administration. How do you see record high unemployment?

Gas was $2.12 when the Democrats took back Congress. Speaker Pelosi publicly stated that she and her fellow democrats were going to bring down the price of gas because $2.12 was too high. So far you don’t seem to understand math too well. Down means lower, up means higher. So now that gas is at $3.97 a gallon you say that is bad but what did the President have to do with it. Congresswoman Pelosi easily proved that it was the Congress not the President that controlled the price of gas. Sorry but you will have to eat that one alone.

The record spending I agree with you on. But you can’t fight a war without money, if the congress does not want to spend the money they can cut the budget. It is the Congress that holds the purse strings not the President. The Budget may be suggested by the President but it is written by Congress. You do know how the three branches of government work right?

You, sir, sound like a Tory. I agree with you here.

Cikomyr

on Jul 08, 2008

Gas was $2.12 when the Democrats took back Congress. Speaker Pelosi publicly stated that she and her fellow democrats were going to bring down the price of gas because $2.12 was too high. So far you don’t seem to understand math too well. Down means lower, up means higher. So now that gas is at $3.97 a gallon you say that is bad but what did the President have to do with it. Congresswoman Pelosi easily proved that it was the Congress not the President that controlled the price of gas. Sorry but you will have to eat that one alone.

I think their learned the lesson that the Congress has little control over the oil price. Specially when you have a Veto-easy president.

when you think of it, a Bush has vetoed a lot of things the Congress voted in the past year and a half, hasn't he? It's easy to blame a governement branch for doing nothing when the branch controled by your favorite party can paralyse it almost at will.

It is the Congress that holds the purse strings not the President. The Budget may be suggested by the President but it is written by Congress. You do know how the three branches of government work right?

Well, the previous congress did had an habit of spending a lot of money on political goals for their own counties. They increased those kind of spending by a huge margin, if I remember right. I don't have the numbers with me, however. (these spending doesn't have anything to do with the war)

Paladin77

on Jul 08, 2008

I think their learned the lesson that the Congress has little control over the oil price. Specially when you have a Veto-easy president.

Please tell me what the president vetoed that would bring the price of gas down? I am sure the liberal democrats would have had that all over the news by now. Or are they part of the conspiracy too?

when you think of it, a Bush has vetoed a lot of things the Congress voted in the past year and a half, hasn't he?

When you think of it, think a little harder, of the veto’s he did how many were overridden by congress?

Well, the previous congress did had an habit of spending a lot of money on political goals for their own counties.

Yeah, that was disgusting, and it is why they are no longer in power. We sent conservatives to the Congress to make a smaller government and they went crazy. Conservatives voted them out of office. Now that the liberal democrats have had 2 years to fix things we have even higher prices. One more election and you won’t find a democrat in congress as a serious block of votes.

Cikomyr

on Jul 08, 2008

Please tell me what the president vetoed that would bring the price of gas down? I am sure the liberal democrats would have had that all over the news by now. Or are they part of the conspiracy too?

the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. Luckily, it was overriden. It just that crops cannot grow overnight, you know.

When you think of it, think a little harder, of the veto’s he did how many were overridden by congress?

Two of them. The one up here, and Water Resources Development Act of 2007. Out of 10 Veto, 9 of them was in the past year and a half. 10 of them in the past 2 years.

One more election and you won’t find a democrat in congress as a serious block of votes.

that remains to be seen. What odds Vegas give about it?

Paladin77

on Jul 08, 2008

the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. Luckily, it was overriden. It just that crops cannot grow overnight, you know.

Yes, it was passed and now prices are up for food and fuel. Good work. Smart idea making it more expensive to eat.

Two of them. The one up here, and Water Resources Development Act of 2007. Out of 10 Veto, 9 of them was in the past year and a half. 10 of them in the past 2 years.

These acts have no potential of reducing the price of food and fuel and since the passing of these bills against the president’s wishes prices have gone up. They were bad bills.

Cikomyr

on Jul 09, 2008

Yes, it was passed and now prices are up for food and fuel. Good work. Smart idea making it more expensive to eat.

How can subsidies increase the product price? The increase in food and fuel has happened independantly of such bill.

Before the bill, farmers could still sell maize to make ethanol, but now it's more profitable overall. I don't see how that directly influence the price of the stuff. Now, the increase in food price is directly linked to the increase of fuel price, since fuel is one of these people's greatest expanse.

Paladin77

on Jul 09, 2008

How can subsidies increase the product price? The increase in food and fuel has happened independantly of such bill.

Because my dear friend, if you write a bill to encourage the sale of bio-fuels you are telling them they can make more money on the fuel than the food. You have the same acreage of food being planted but now part of it goes to make fuel. The law of supply and demand goes into effect. Less supply, more demand, higher prices. It cost more to buy food you have to raise the price of what you sell to afford to eat. The price of gas goes up so the trucker can afford to eat, the higher fuel prices means that everything trucked, bused, trained, or flown will cost more including food going to market. All of this because some well meaning idiot wrote a bill giving incentives to grow bio-fuels.

You think it is bad now wait another two or three years. The Florida citrus growers are getting rid of their orange trees so they can plant some plant that makes better bio-fuel. The cost of OJ just went through the roof! They are going to try a test crop of half a million acres. How many orange trees will be destroyed just to see if it is profitable? If it is not profitable it takes five years for an orange tree to produce fruit after it is planted. So we are looking at seven to ten years of higher citrus prices it the new thing does not work and even higher prices if it does work because they will cut down more trees.

The price of corn was the first thing to go up a few years ago because it was the first test crop. Higher food prices means higher fuel prices. It seems you and the idiots that dreamed up this nightmare did not think that far ahead. The price of corn is going up world wide because other countries are doing the same thing. The smart move would have been to drill for more oil. Increase supply reduces demand and lowers prices.

Yup a brilliant idea to trade food for fuel.

Cikomyr

on Jul 09, 2008

Yup a brilliant idea to trade food for fuel.

Hey, don't look at me. Personnally, I'm against the Maize ethanol. It's totally inneficient. Sugar ethanol is a much better and efficient product.

On the other hand, Sugar ethanol isn't produced in america, so no one in your borders are really interested hearing about it..

If you found a way to make sugar (the food product) extremely more expensive by turning all the sugar production toward fuel, I think we may solve two of America's problem with one stone:

- Fuel shortage
- Obesity (sugar overnutrition)

Paladin77

on Jul 09, 2008

On the other hand, Sugar ethanol isn't produced in america, so no one in your borders are really interested hearing about it..

You are quite mistaken they are gearing up for the conversion of our sugar to fuels. Almost all food producers are looking at it to get the subsidy. Farming is a business, and whatever makes money is what they will look at. This is why the subsidy is insane.

If you found a way to make sugar (the food product) extremely more expensive by turning all the sugar production toward fuel, I think we may solve two of America's problem with one stone:

Less sugar for the food market means higher prices for foods that use sugar. Again we will cause the price of fuel to go up. Keep food out of the fuel markets and you can reduce the price of fuel. Drill for more oil, and you reduce the price of fuel.

Cikomyr

on Jul 10, 2008

Less sugar for the food market means higher prices for foods that use sugar.

Or less sugar into the darn food. Ever seen how much sugar is in every single freaking product you buy?

Paladin77

on Jul 10, 2008

Or less sugar into the darn food. Ever seen how much sugar is in every single freaking product you buy?

Do you really believe this? You really think that less sugar will be put into food products? If that were the case then when the price of sugar doubled in the 70’s all they did was use corn syrup as a substitute. The amount of sweetness and calories did not change just the type of sweetener. By the way that raised the price of corn which raised the price of gas. All you do it make the product more expensive.

Cikomyr

on Jul 10, 2008

Do you really believe this?

Yhea. Food producers have a chance to supply less sugar-saturated products, advertising both "cheaper" and "better for the health".

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!