To be or not to be...Protectionist

There is a very fine line for the subject and cringe at those who believe it should be one extreme or the other. Senator Clinton has already established herself as a major protectionist, but I wonder what the other candidates stances are on this issue. If Clinton continues on this rampage, she will certainly alienate conservative or pro-business, pro-market Democrats as well as Republicans. During this time of economic prosperity and concerns over whether it will last, she might play herself into a defeat during the Democratic Primary.

With global trade and economic dependence, protectionism will be a key issue in the economic debates for both the primary and general elections. I'm interested to see how big pro-Wall Street politicians like Giuliani feel about this subject. Giuliani is by far the best candidate for Wall Street, or so those who work there believe. His extensive background in business and business law should certainly aid him throughout the Republican Primary. Whether the financial outlook looks bleak or solid, he can use his vast experience to persuade voters that his economic policy will either strengthen or maintain the future.

Whichever party wins, I hope Congress and the financial and economic experts in their cabinet and in key organizations (FED, FOMC, etc.) deter any candidate from going one way or the other. Too much protectionism, such as Sen. Clinton is proposing, will create a steep increase in inflation, decrease US exports as well as imports, and put a significant strain on our diplomatic relationships around the globe. By the same token, failure to create and maintain low-wage jobs will also create economic and social problems such as high unemployment and more dependence on government welfare and tax dollars. Additionally, Wal-Marts will continue to force their suppliers to venture outside of the US to keep up with the low prices they demand, directly affecting the job market.

Protectionism is a touchy subject, one that will not become any easier to figure out as the US economy becomes more reliant on globalization. Creating a limited protectionist platform sounds like the most effective route to counter this problem. Although it will create subjectivity, most who follow the economy can agree that neither extreme would ultimately be beneficial for America. Free trade needs to be emphasized, but some low taxes can offset enough jobs from being sent overseas.

Grading the Democratic Debate (All Participats)

Hilary Clinton - D

Sen. Clinton did nothing short of disappoint me when I already have little respect and confidence in her. Instead of providing unique solutions to the questions and problems posed, she spend most of her air time lashing out on the Bush Administration. Although I am not a fan of many Bush policies, Clinton needed to use this time to impress those who aren't sold on her instead of using her breath for her personal vendetta.

Why does she despise the Bush Administration so much? Yes, he supposedly lied to the American public. But then again, didn't her own husband do the same? He turned out to be quite a solid President, despite failing to get most of his agenda passed through Congress. You have to assume that the White House received the same intelligence as Congress when this Iraq situation began, a war she voted for originally. She also voted for the invasion of Afghanistan, yet seems to regret most of her votes. Instead of blaming others for her mistakes and flawed political record, it would have been much nicer to see her come out firing with some good ideas and a sound political platform, neither of which we received from her tonight. She also showed her anti-free trade platform with her ideas of protectionism and regulation to run the country from the economy to health care. Clinton was even more vague on her health care plans then Obama, but at least she didn't say she wanted to hike taxes outright. Last I checked, we weren't in a communist country Senator Clinton!

Even worse, she still comes off negatively in many American's mind. I can't put my finger on exactly what it is, but she seems snobby, arrogant, and obnoxious. A poster on a forum I read suggested her tone as caustic and explained, " For starters, as a male, she comes off as the type of wife that most men don't want. Not that she is a strong female, that's cool, she just comes off as a caustic female. She just doesn't come off as a very nice lady. I don't think I'd want her in my circle of friends."

Maybe this criticism is unfair, but it seems apparent with 40%+ of the public disliking her, she has a real mountain to climb. Other candidates like Obama and Edwards seem to be more likable, similar to how the public perceived Bill Clinton and George W. Bush during campaigns. If the Dems want a real shot at winning, I'm convinced they need to run either Obama or Edwards instead of another Kerry or Gore (though he obviously could/should have won).

Barack Obama - A-/B+

Obama was solid tonight. He once again spoke elegantly and showed reasons why he could be a successful President. Instead of bashing the current administration, Obama gave some resounding solutions and unique, detailed initiatives he would like to help pass. Additionally, he seemed to have sound balance in his foreign policy stance. Although he wants a quick troop withdrawal, he understands the fundamental problems of the Middle East well and redirected an attack on a quote the moderator tried to tie onto Palestinian sympathy. Despite his campaign aimed further left then Clinton, he seems more eager to work with both sides of Congress and you get the feeling that the Republicans will have higher respect for him as President.

Obama was very vague on his funding of the proposed universal health care which he supports. Subsidies are a distinct possibility, as is the improvement of inefficient health care services. Although I like the idea of private health care due to the enormous amount of potential problems it might bring.

John Edwards - A-/B+

Overall, Edwards almost stole the show. Despite seemingly fewer questions, he actually answered more conservatively then either Obama or Clinton. That fact is interesting because he was supposed to be running the campaign furthest to the left. You have to wonder if his ads will focus on that profile while his debates and speeches will try and attract more moderate Dems and even liberal Republicans.

What really impressed me with Edwards was his composure. Calm and collected, he delivered detailed, well-pronounced (although he has that southern accent) replies. He reminded me some of Bill Clinton, although not quite as friendly. However, he still was much more appealing then Hilary in terms of vocals.

Edwards best answer of the night was his abortion response. Although Edwards clearly stated that he was pro-choice, he appealed towards the middle and even the Republican side of the line almost perfectly. He conceded that the issue is very personal and important to most voters, claiming we need to accept everyone's opinion on the situation. That type of sympathy appeal was not made by Clinton and might prove to come back and hurt her chances of ultimately winning both the Primary and Presidency, should she advance.

Had Edwards not suggested raising taxes to fund his universal health care program, he may have received a better grade. Once he uttered repealing the Bush tax cuts, it was a huge hit to his camp right away. With the economy and stock market performing like it is, tax increases could cause severe, detrimental damage.

Bill Richardson - B

Richardson looked goofy and almost as if he was trying too hard at times. His speaking was decent, but not good. His hand gestures were almost a little too overwhelming for me. He definitely gained credibility by standing up for his own personal views and opinions, not necessarily those associated with his party. He announced that he was pro-gun control, would use the military if necessary, and has been a known supply-sider when it comes to economics.

In addition, Richardson looked solid on some key aspects of current political issues. First, Richardson displayed his prowess and experience in foreign policy by answering several questions and making it a point to mention his work in that area of the political sphere. The moderator pointed out he received 4 Nobel Peace Prize nominations and Richardson himself further pointed out his familiarity with foreign diplomacy when referenced his work with North Korea.

Lastly, Richardson may be aided by his role as Governor instead of Senator. Like he vehemently explained, he deals with these decisions and issues first-hand, on a daily basis in New Mexico. That type of pressure and the need for quick, decisive action sometimes is harder for Senators since they are transitioning roles.

Joe Biden - D+

Biden did not leave much of a mark on this debate. He had a personal "attack" if you will that he failed to respond to, rendering him as defenseless. Unlike Obama and even Clinton to some extent, Biden didn't defend his name. Although he isn't really a lasting 2008 candidate, moves like that might cost him in the future. Also in the last half, like Hilary, he focused more on attacking the Bush Administration instead of responding with thorough, sound answers.

Dennis Kucinich - D

Give me a break. This guy might be the biggest pushover in the history of Washington. How he landed a seat is beyond me. He was basically against anything militaristic in nature. He solely desires to rely on diplomacy to solve foreign issues. Apparently Rep. Kucinich doesn't understand that terrorists do not negotiate and even if they do, they cannot be trusted. He sounds like the type of politicians who belong in France. Appeasement is not the answer, just ask those French cowards. Germany used them for years in the early half of the 19th Century. The leaders we are dealing with in North Korea, Iran and terrorist organizations are replicas of Hitler. We can all thank god that Mr. Kucinich won't be the President anytime in his life, except maybe for a local committee.

Mike Gravel - F

Who is this guy? I can honestly say that Sen. Gravel would not have been elected in any other state except Alaska. They must really be desperate or maybe they don't care much up there. Instead of answering questions, Gravel bashed his counterparts for this and that. On top of that, he yelled the moderator for asking too few questions to him, proclaiming his seniority. Maybe if he realized how unimportant he is to the Democratic Presidential Campaign he would understand. Gravel is an absolute joke.

Chris Dodd - B

Dodd has some good experience at it showed. For someone who has been in the political realm as long as he has, public speaking should be easy and it showed. He has some sound responses to questions and actually solidified himself as a leader in the Democratic party. He was for civil unions, but not gay marriage.

Could Protectionism Actually Hurt the Dollar?

Although some Democrats claim to be in favor of protectionism to help bolster the U.S. Dollar and curb outsourcing and the trade deficit, John Rutledge, former Reagan Economic Advisor and current President of Rutledge Capital, says it may actually cause an inverse affect. Over the past year, the U.S. Dollar Index has declined sharply while falling substantially against the Euro, Pound and Chinese Yuan. The important aspect to note in these declines against other notable currencies is that only the Yen and Yuan have a significant impact on the U.S. economy because China and Japan are two of our prime exporters and trade partners. Europe and England fail to pose nearly the threat that Japan and China do should the U.S. Dollar really free-fall against those currencies, which essentially would drive up inflation.

Democrats believe protectionism will help maintain the value of the U.S. Dollar, when in fact, the opposite needs to happen to help control outsourcing and decrease the number of imports into the U.S. If the Dollar falls significantly against the Yuan and Yen, manufacturing and production in the United States will ultimately become cheaper and in theory, our manufacturing sector will actually begin to expand again to adequately supply the public with their needed goods and services. However, the only possible scenario for the USD to decline drastically enough against the Yen and Yuan is free market forces, not government regulation or policy-making.

Additionally, Rutledge went on to explain that the USD should stabilize vs. the Yuan and maintain its success with the Yen. His theory for the slowing of the USD decline against the Chinese currency was based on increased speculation on the Yuan and the theory that recent run-ups by the monetary unit have created a bubble that will likely burst at some point in the next couple years. Keeping the USD strong against the Yuan will be key for controlling inflationary pressure in the economy, but likely will continue to contribute to outsourcing and a lack of trade balance with China.

The solution to this dilemma is simple; let the Yuan run its course and lower corporate tax rates in the U.S. to make business investment and production more attractive.

Who is to Blame for the Virginia Tech Massacre?

First off, let me say that my thoughts and prayers are with the families, friends and colleagues of the victims in Blacksburg. That was one of the most despicable acts I have ever seen. The young man who committed them is a selfish coward, who obviously had serious mental problems. There is plenty of blame to go around for this incident.

You can start with the V. Tech police department and President, who failed to secure the building and lockdown the campus after the first shootings. Had they done this and taken a more preventative approach, this catastrophe may never have happened or at least not to the degree it took place. Also, universities and colleges should run criminal, psychological and other sorts of background checks before admitting prospective students. While this may not have prevented the tragedy that occurred today, few can argue that it would really hurt.

Next you can look at our weak gun control laws in this country. No matter what party you are in, there is simply zero reasons to oppose gun control to at least a certain magnitude. Assault rifles, automatic and semi-automatic guns have no place in the hands of society, despite this incident arising from handgun usage. Secondly, more extensive background checks are needed and the NRA needs to get their arrogant heads out of their behinds and actually show they might care about situations like this. I do agree with the protectionism of the 2nd Ammendment for our Constitution, but understand there is need for modification too. After all, aren't these rules called Ammendments for a reason? Shouldn't we be allowed to continuously update these laws as times change? It is clear to me that Americans are too irresponsible to allow full freedom under the 2nd Ammendment. Regulations on gun types, clip sizes and round speeds will not only decrease the number of victims of these derranged, pathetic cowards, but they also can aid in the success of law enforcement.

Some media members and Americans blame our culture for this violence instead of actually placing the blame on the individuals themselves. American culture is far more censored than any other developed country of note. How much further are you really willing to go? Asian cartoons and movies are filled with violence, yet they never seem to have such problems. Part of the reason is that the violence in television and other mediums in Asia rely on old-fashioned fighting, instead of gun use. If there is one aspect of American (and probably Western culture in general) to criticize and point fingers towrads, it surely must be gun perceptions. Too often in urban and action movies, guns are portrayed as "cool" and symbols of power. Using them on other humans without the same level of protection is about as cowardly as Muslim extremists who commit suicide bombings on civilians.

In the end, the blame needs to come back towards the individual and his/her actions. This kid decided to selfishly take others lives instead of just ending his. Depression is a terrible disease and as someone who has experience at least a minor level of it during my lifetime, I never once blamed anyone I did not know for feeling sorry for myself. I definitely do not condone the murder of his girlfriend, but at least we knew his motive (albeit a horrific one). What did those other 32 people do to deserve their lives to be disrupted like this? How about their families, friends, classmates, faculty and all of the thousands affected by this unbelievable act?

The gunman, whomever he is, alienated his family, our country, his nationality, and most importantly the honor and dignity by which we live our lives. Unfortunately, he acted like the gutless bastard he is when he took his own life. We never will know for sure why he did these horrible things and what possessed him. Additionally, we also won't get our revenge. He is a weak, craven coward and may he suffer in hell for the pain and suffering he has caused.