Leadership is Key

What we need in our government is strong leadership and leaders who are more experienced and qualified to build programs, protect citizens by making laws and holding to them, restructuring our financial system since it appears that our largest financial companies have failed Americans by handing out money to businesses and people without appropriately looking into there history or background before giving out such loans.
In any case does this mean that the bailout of 700 Billion dollars that was paid out by the government shows eventually government will need to step in permanently in the future? Maybe this would actually put rules and regulations into place to prevent another meltdown. Where do we go from there? Or, do we slap their hands at the tax payer’s expense and trust that they will impose tighter regulations and guidelines and move forward.
Now a little talk about how our next president will fit into all this. Either one of the candidates will need to bring new focus and light to the situation in order to help resolve the current situations by either setting reforms to have the public believe the government is changing in a forward progress. Or maybe raising taxes to be the answer to fixing the financial companies mistakes preventing a recap in misuse of money in huge corporations or worse we could be seeing money laundering in the future the majority cause of all this failures affecting the system. Americans don’t need to be paying for the slack of others not doing their jobs. Leadership is key to helping the recession where in.

Obama's Tax Plan Isn't a Tax Plan

A blog post named “Spreading the Wealth Around” by John on Power Line tells how Obama tax plan if inaugurated into office in January will affect all. That this will hurt some 5% of Americans whose taxes will be raised astoundingly huge to help all other Americans a small cut in their taxes. Obama’s theory is to” spread the wealth around,” he tells a Plummer that complains his taxes will be raised. John the writer goes into details complaining that Obama is not issuing a tax plan but a “tax and wealth fare plan”.
The author audience in this case is people researching for information about upcoming candidates running for election and inside advice to peruse the reader from voting for the Democratic Party this mainly being Obama. Also the general public he tries make well aware of Obama’s plans and how there going to negatively effect the country welfare program and how the future tax dollars will be spent in the upcoming years if he’s elected. He latter also shows expectance of the audience knowledge of the usual democratic impact and liking for big government. The liking of bureaucracy making all happy and taking care of special needs he feels is not necessary to discuss.
John quotes the Wall Street Journal in his entire blog pointing out main key factor that prove Obama tax plan isn’t much of a plan. His Fox News video posted along with his article tells how “¼” of Americans don’t even get a tax break, because they get there taxes back. Then John uses Wall Streets Journal numbers to show that “tax credit will rise from $647 billion to $1054 trillion,”and also “an additional 10 million” people will pay no taxes in “2011”.
His information from Wall Street Journal that he repeatedly quotes never goes into detail how the plan will actually trigger these enormous numbers in money and people being taxed free. Logically assuming the audience picks up the idea Obama wants large government which means hiring a lot more governmental employees. For people who work for the government gets pensions and don’t pay tax’s which would lead more to being tax credited. Thus will raise taxes higher on the 5% of people that aren’t getting the tax cut. Obama does this to have the majority to be happy. Which down the road takes the meaning of welfare out of the box, and John believes that AFDC will have to come in to the government to fix the problems as seen back in the 1930’s.
For I can not come to a decision to take side because the credibility is not enough to prove that Barrack Obama’s plan in taxing is a good idea or not. I would have to go to more reliable sources to read their articles on the subject to have a better side on the idea to make a decision. John never explains why the tax credit is going to raise. I definitely don’t trust Fox news being owned by a person with multiple other new stations. I see no information showing that the plan is more of a welfare plan then a tax plan because of no proving evidence of how untaxed people are going to be increasing over the years

Bush's Downfall in Presidency

In the Article “Loss in Congress Shows decline of Bush’s clout” by Ken Herman in The Austin Statesman showed President Bush had no influence what is so ever on the Republicans in House of Representatives over the Bailout package. The bail out package was to give 700 billion dollars to banks so they could keep lending out money. This is needed because banks have given out an exceeding amount of loans that could make banks fail. Bush was encouraging the Republicans to vote for this Bill, that he was promoting, that would help to allow free market intervention in mainly the house mortgages. His influence that was shown had no effect on their decision and the outcome.
The author intended for his audience that would be reading this article were Americans that where up to date with the Bail bond. He did not elaborate enough about the bill and how it would benefit the citizens of the nation as a whole. Herman also expects from the readers that they know a bit already about Bush and his reign as president over the last 8 years and how he is not liked or respected by the majority of the country. In the end of this article, you see that Herman cared only to give readers the inside scoops of what others are saying that justify for Bush’s lack of influence and respect of others he gains and how it influenced the rejection of the Bill.
The credibility shown in this article is not apparent, and it’s mainly one sided. The only person he has to quote and prove his statements is a man named Buchanan. Herman never goes in to detail who this man is and what his importance in United States is. Buchanan only shares his views and reactions to Bush administration in office so far and his outlook on the bill. He also Quotes Tony Fratto, who is Bush’s Deputy Press Secretary to explain what the bill was about. There is no truth in this article because he goes into supporting details what the bill was about his view that are truthful, unless you were to watch local television news or listened to Bush’s speech about the bill.
The Argument in this paper is that the President Bush had no influence on the Republican’s decisions to vote for the bill he was supporting. Herman States that Bush’s poll numbers have dropped to a low, and this shows that the majority does not respect the President views. Second, he claims that bush has been promoting the ideas of the bill for a long time pushing that nobody wants to hear anymore about nor wants to deal with Herman believes. Bush’s persistent hurts him in the long run on how he’s viewed. He doesn’t let go of this key point that so important to him the author believes.
I disagree with the Article on Bush’s persuasive abilities to encourage his views in voting. I think Bush is still looked as a strong influence in our nation. He has the ability to make our country look bad at times and good at others. I am sure the Representatives considered his views, but that does not mean they have to vote how he wants. Else there would be no point to voting or we wouldn’t have a Democracy. Bush made a public speech to the nation on Bailout package concern which has made all aware of the situation, and importance state of the Bill. I’m sure he also influenced Obama and McCain on the view because they had also taken side on voting for it and publicly speaking about it to others also.