Babeled

That’s right all you change mongers, unificators, and yes-we-canadians.  Barack Obama will divide our country even further.  He will do it right under your liberal noses.

How?

His campaign claims he will erase hatred and bigotry yet most of his supporters call John McCain “Politics as Usual” simply because he is a wealthy, elderly, white male.  Well to me that sounds like racism, ageism, sexism, and class warefare all bundled up in one convenient package with big ears and a slick tounge.

His biggest proponents claim he will unify the country.  I cannot imagine a more idiotic statement.  Obama is the most Liberal candidate to win the Democratic nomination in my lifetime.  How is a man who makes Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy look like conservatives supposed to unite the country?  In fact, if you look closely at his policy, he is even further to the left than everyone’s favorite villain, Bush, is to the right.  So how will this mend the tear between the parties?  It will serve just the opposite effect of increasing the divide between left and right.  If one candidate actually has a chance at unifying the country it is the extremely moderate McCain who is only a stone’s throw away from a Democrat in terms of policy and has been the single most outspoken critic of the Bush Administration on that side of the aisle since the 2000 primaries.

I’m sorry Obamacons, but your boy is only another Bush riding a Donkey instead of an Elephant and you can’t even see it coming - No you can’t.

~Man Overboard

Popularity: 7% [?]

Trickle-down economics is actually a political term that has been referred to in various capacities as, “Trickle-down theory”, “supply-side economics”, or my personal favorite, “Reaganomics.”  This ideal is based on the premise that when the wealthy get to keep more of their money in the form of paying less taxes, that incremental income will “trickle” down the economic ladder in the form of increased payrolls and pay rates, as well as increased consumption of goods.  This assumes that the incremental income will be invested in business infrastructure and equity markets, thereby decreasing the cost of goods while increasing jobs and wages.

There are many reasons this premise is flawed, and I shall be over-joyed to share them with you.

• There are many investment options for the wealthy, as they are minimally constrained with what they can purchase.  Typically, investment into business infrastructure no longer comes in the form of a larger payroll.  Instead, companies are decreasing their payrolls via outsourcing, layoffs of higher-earning employees subsequently replaced by younger, cheaper employees, streamlining processes, and implementing technological solutions.  This is smart business because it increases the companies earnings, leading to an increasing stock price.  Most executives are the “wealthy” being discussed, and executive compensation is mostly comprised of equity (stock) compensation, with a typically much smaller percentage of income from actual salary.  Increase earnings, stock price goes up, rich get richer without any money trickling down; rather, they actually achieved this through taking jobs aways from those in the lower economic brackets.
• Production of goods, and thus the price of goods, is determined by supply.  If 1% of the population has more money to spend on consumables but the other 99% have less (or even the same) amount of money, the demand is actually decreased (or not sufficiently increased) and certainly not prompting higher production (which is the basis for the increased job portion of Reaganomics), and therefore prices don’t budge.  There is also the issue of product mix.  The wealthy are not purchasing all of the same goods as the rest of the country.  They are typically the ones who purchase the imported goods as imports are more often than not the “luxury” items.  Those consumables went straight to another country.  Not that stuff from Wal-Mart doesn’t eventually get traced back to China or Malaysia somehow, but at least the American retailers get most of the profit first.
• As you go up the scale in wealth, there is a corresponding increase in the craftiness of the people handling said wealth.  What I mean is that usually extremely wealthy people pay very intelligent and creative business people large sums of money to be good stewards of their fortunes.  These financial experts also have to compete with one another to obtain the patronage of wealthy clients, especially since they are so few in number.  The results of this competition are things like groups of mortgages with a certain guaranteed return (interest rate for the borrower…) being sold by banks to investment groups.  These investment groups are financed by money from the wealthy as an alternative to things like stocks and bonds.  So, in this instance, the higher the interest rate on the mortgages, the higher the return for the investment group, the higher the return for the wealthy.  Another example of how the rich get richer off of the lower economic classes.
• This is a bipartisan theory, no matter what anyone tells you.  Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both extended and increased the reforms put in place by Reagan’s administration.  This includes the 15% capital gains tax, the lowest in U.S. history, which strictly benefits those with enough income to invest in financial markets.  Proponents would argue that this makes sense based on trickle-down  principles and is clearly the proper course of action.  I think that the first bullet shows exactly why this is false.  The lower capital gains tax makes it more appealing for the wealthy to obtain more of their income through stock and the like.  It is not a coincidence that executives’ compensation is mostly derived from stock, it is because they know that they pay about half of the amount of income tax on capital gains as opposed to their salaries.  The top 1% earners of the country are all heavily invested in the stock market, no matter where their fortune was built.
• In addition to lower capital gains taxes, the Reaganomics reforms also lowered taxes on corporations.  This is in perfect line with the logic that the more money the company gets to hold onto, the more jobs, goods, etc.  Again from the first bullet: business infrastructure is undergoing a metamorphosis.   Corporate investments are being made overseas and in personnel-reducing areas.  They are not taking these increased profits and hiring more people.  They are paying higher dividends to their shareholders, who as we have demonstrated earlier, are mostly the wealthy.
• In order to offset the lowering of the two types of taxes above, the Reaganomics solution in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was not to reduce spending (this would be too Republican, I mean, ACTUALLY a smaller government? Pretty please?), but to increase individual income taxes on the lower earners by decreasing the top tax tier from 50% to 28% and increasing the bottom tier from 11% to 15%.  In actuality, these became the only two tax brackets.  This restructuring of income-level brackets left a segment of the population which was previously classified in the 11% bracket now a part of the 28% bracket to bear a 154.5% increase in their income tax expense.  If they were previously in the 11% bracket, that means they were in the bottom portion of income earners.  The situation is such that people who were not making a lot of money to begin with are now having about 3/4 of what they used to before the tax reform.  This is where the government made out big on economies of scale.
• Don’t go giving me the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction argument.  This benefits a large number of non-wealthy Americans, so it would seem to be a more equitable piece of the Act?  Not so, because the people that just had their tax rate increased from 11% to 15% or even 28% do not necessarily have the requisite liquid cash to obtain a mortgage.  So they rent, and the landlord who owns the property may benefit from the deduction, but not the renter.  I would venture to guess the landlord is the one in the better financial situation of the two.  The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit was added for some semblance of balance in the Act.  This has been an effective tool for low-income households, but those who worship to the bust of Ronald Reagan condemn the people who are benefiting from the one thing he did to help the less economically fortunate.

To be honest, the list goes on and on.  There will be more to come including episodes on how Reaganomics resulted in the recession from the early 1990’s, the tech stock fiasco, and the current mortgage and home price situation.

Image used in this post courtesy of flickr user pingnews.com and provides some foreshadowing about what economic policies McCain probably has to offer.  Forget it, Obama won’t change this either.

Popularity: 6% [?]

There was an excellent comment left by Ken Bouley a while back when I babeled on the difference between U.S. and European gas prices that got me thinking: How much money are the various governmental agencies in the U.S. collecting in tax revenues from petroleum-related activities?  While there are still angles and pieces to this equation that I have not yet drawn conclusions, there is certainly enough enlightening information to share.  Let us begin with the tax receipts that are gleaned directly from income taxes on American oil companies and the per gallon Excise tax levied at the pump.

Dollars in thousands

The Big Three U.S. Oil Companies (ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips) account for a combined $54.7 billion in income taxes paid to the government.  There were nine other U.S. oil companies for which I was able to find financial information, and those account for the Income Tax - Other Oil Companies category at $11.1 billion.  The Gasoline Taxes at $4 per gallon is calculated using the same estimate from the U.S. versus European Gas Prices blog.  The per gallon average tax rate of $0.44 cents is multiplied by the estimated annual comsumption of gasoline in the U.S.  Ultimately, there are $130.1 billion in income taxes and excise taxes collected directly from petroleum and gasoline operations.  Note: this excludes the taxes levied on your natural gas bills, electricity, and the portion of Individual Income taxes that go to providing government vehicles with gasoline and buildings with natural gas.  It also excludes payroll taxes collected from U.S. citizens who work for oil companies.  Either way, $130.1 billion collected in gasoline and other petroleum taxes is a daunting number, but what does it mean in the context of the U.S. government’s total tax receipts picture?

Dollars in thousands

The taxes collected by the oil companies ($65.9 billion) accounts for 17.8% of all Corporate Income Tax collected by the U.S. government in 2007.  Twelve companies out of the countless thousands in the U.S. account for almost one-fifth (1/5) of the total income taxes paid by all Corporations.  The estimated amount of excise taxes collected ($0.44 per gallon in your pump price) at $64.2 billion accounts for approximately 98% of all excise taxes collected.  Examples of other excise taxes are: taxes levied on alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.  In the big picture of total tax receipts, the $130.1 billion described above accounts for 5.1% of all taxes collected by the U.S. government.  Now, how are these funds being appropriated by the government?

Dollars in thousands

The U.S. Federal Government is operating at a deficit, as shown above, but the deficit figure displayed may not be the official figure because of adjustments the IRS includes such as uncollected taxes which are not accounted for in this analysis as that is an immaterial issue for this discussion.  The total funding dispersed to Transportation and Energy equals $100.4 billion in 2007.  The direct taxes received from petroleum activities in 2007 were $130.1 billion.  This leaves a gap of over $29 billion between taxes collected and what is appropriated to government activities directly related those taxes.  The $29 billion is going to cover losses on other government budget items.  This is, of course, how most corporations work as well: you cover your budget overages in some areas with budget surpluses in other areas.

However, this does not account for the quality of the decision to have a surplus in any one area.  The reason that there is a surplus in the transportation spending versus the taxes collected relating to it, is because there are a series of decisions made to not repair or upgrade certain sections of the infrastructure.  So, the surplus is being created from a lack of funding for construction that keeps roadways structurally safe.

There will be more analysis to come, this was an intial look at the tax-picture of gasoline and oil in the U.S.  It is very interesting that the government has been complaining about big oil’s profits recently, especially since they are getting over $65 billion in income tax revenue from their operations.  The Excise tax is being bolstered significantly as well because it is a percentage of the price at the pump.  That means the bigger the price tag at the pump, the higher the per gallon excise tax as well.  Somehow I doubt the government is really concerned about the increased petroleum prices because they are profiting on a scale even larger than the oil companies.

Popularity: 7% [?]

• Pay my medical bills in full every time (that which is not covered by my insurance which I pay extra for)
• Generate clean, safe, reliable, CARBON FREE, energy for a living
• Vote
• Recycle paper, plastic bottles, tin cans, plastic bags, organic waste (in my dare I say wicked tomato garden), glass bottles, and lousy jokes.
• Donated more than 2% of my income to recognized charities last year and am on pace to pass that this year.
• Donated even more to unrecognized charities and that’s about all I’m going to say about that.
• Pay my taxes
• Only heat my house to 60 degrees in the winter, do not turn on my AC until it hits 90 degrees in the summer, and made energy saving modifications to my house in order to reduce my energy foot print (and save on my bills of course).
• Proudly display the American Flag
• Was named Clean Communities Person of the Year for the State of New Jersey at the age of 8.
• Worked 3 years in the deadliest, most physically exhausting profession on the planet to finance my education.
• Sacrifice my own standard of living which is by all accounts modest in order to ensure that upon retirement I will not be dependent on the generosity of others for survival.
• Was eligible to collect unemployment benefits at more than one point in my life but refused on principle despite the circumstances.

So if that makes me a Neocon - guilty.  The way I look at it, we Neocons, as liberals call us as if we might be insulted by such a label, are people of values, determination, and most of all we are people of action who do more than talk about how to make the world a better place - we get off our asses and do it.

~Man Overboard

Popularity: 9% [?]

Let me start by saying it is inevitable.  Look at any web based news site right this very moment and you will undoubtedly see 5 headlines featuring the name Obama and if you are lucky a single headline featuring John McCain.  With so much painfully biased media coverage and the average Americans propensity for stupidity and Sheep-like tendencies it is no surprise to me that the political equivalent of the Backstreet Boys is a lock to become Commander in Chief of their largest arsenal in the history of mankind and the leader of the free world.

What will be the result?

As spoken in context of the introduction to an episode of The Twilight Zone - Picture if you will….

A man elected President of the United States despite a political record that is completely unknown to the majority of those who cast their vote in his favor.

American troops are instantly withdrawn from Iraq.  American military morale reaches its lowest point since the fall of Saigon - at best.  Radical Islam rejoices.

Those Iraqi’s who stood by American troops are slaughtered by the radical Islamists who now control the country.  Radical Islam rejoices.

Iranian troops, undeterred by the American president who has already promised to not use his military might against them, pour across the border and immediately subjugate the Sunni minority and massacre the Kurds in the North of the country who are denied refuge in their only option for escape, Turkey.  Radical Islam rejoices.

Extremists in Saudi Arabia, emboldened by the Iranian action, riot and overthrow the Saudi monarchy and adopt a Theocratic Muslim government friendly to the newly revitalized Persian Muslim Empire.  Radical Islam rejoices.

What little progress made in Israel is now gone as the Iranian Iatolas now control over 50% of the world’s oil and thus increase funding to Hezbollah and Hamas by orders of magnitude thus increasing their ability to wage war against Israel.  Radical Islam rejoices.

Moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is assassinated and his Fatah government is overthrown by Hammas militants who are hell bent on Israel’s destruction and not at all interested in peace with the Jewish nation.  Radical Islam rejoices.

Now for the Economy

National, government run healthcare is enacted. Taxes are raised.

If you borrowed more money than you could pay in a mortgage payment the government hands you a check and rewards you for your idiotic investment.  Taxes are raised.

The flow of illegal immigrants across the US border swells as Obama immediately halts construction of the border wall and refuses to take any action against illegal immigrants.  This new influx is also given access to free healthcare and continues to pay no taxes in America.  Taxes are raised.

Oil Companies are penalized for making profits.  This cost is not placed on the shoulders of the corporations but instead is passed on to the consumers in the form of price increases to a gallon of gas that now costs well over $10.00 per gallon thanks to the conditions in the Middle East.

Obama refuses to drill in ANWAR, and refuse to drill off the coast of Florida even though China and even Vietnam now do.  Gasoline now costs $12.00 per gallon.

Obama grants his campaign promise of making a college education every American’s “birth right.”  Taxes are raised.

If you make over $250,000 you are penalized for your success.  Taxes are raised.

Nothing what so ever is done about Social Security for another four years.  Taxes are raised.

Companies begin layoffs as they are unable to meet the out of control payroll taxes and maintain a successful business in light of price increases.  Unemployment reaches its highest level since the great depression. These unemployed people are now a burden on the welfare system.  Taxes are raised.

End result:

Radical Islam declares victory in the war against America.  AK-47s around the world are fired into the air.

Americans now pay $20.00 for a gallon of gas and 60% of their salaries to income taxes.

Bush is blamed.

And now I batten down the hatches and brace for the inevitable storm of comments brewing on the horizon at the hands of the Liberal Hoard that runs a racket on the internet in a manner reminiscent of La Cosa Nostra.  “Bring ‘em on” - George W. Bush

~Man Overboard

Popularity: 21% [?]

This past Tuesday night Barack Obama received the Democratic party’s nomination for President and when he walked up onto the stage he gave his wife, Michelle, a “fist bump”. Already there is a ton of buzz in the air from media outlets and various blogsites. In what was an unorthodox move, for any political figure, Obama showed the public how he doesn’t put on an act to be too prim and proper. He showed that at the end of the day, he likes to be silly with his wife and be hip at the same time.

There is no doubt that the “fist bump” was intentional and planned as they both looked directly into each other’s eyes, after the ‘usual’ hug routine, and gave each other a “pound”. Obama also apparently gave her a little pat on the butt, something that Clinton can at least respect. Nevertheless, the “pound” was the image that was taken away from the night. By giving his wife the “pound” Obama sent a message to all that he is young, fresh, and ready to take on the world. In what could have been a negative media frenzy over the “fist bump”, Obama has gained more positive feedback from the people and the media. He did something that could have been perceived poorly and now he is just reminding the voters of his humility and his sincere desire to do things differently.

Popularity: 6% [?]

Last week I learned something that I had never been privy to: Puerto Ricans have the opportunity to vote in the United States Presidential Primaries. This comes as a fairly huge surprise to me as I was unaware that Puerto Rico was even a state in these United States. Why should they have the privilege to cast their vote for a Presidential nominee? I mean they are a commonwealth, not a state! Puerto Rico has been a U.S. commonwealth since 1947 and a subservient state to the U.S. since the Spanish-American War. They elect their own governor, have 3 governmental branches (executive, legislative, & judicial), they are considered U.S. citizens, and they even have an elected official in the U.S. Congress. It sounds like Puerto Rico is a state to me! So why then is it not recognized as such? Unfortunately I have no idea why Puerto Rico hasn’t become the 51st state of the U.S., but with their primary coming up in a week, perhaps they can demonstrate that they are actively interested in becoming a United State.

With the majority of Hispanics casting their vote for Hillary Clinton, Puerto Rico’s 63 delegates could easily give Clinton the push that she needs to surpass Barack Obama. Over the past two presidential elections, Puerto Rico has held caucuses for the nomination process because by the time it came to vote, the nominees were already chosen. This time the Chairman of the Puerto Rican Democratic Party, Roberto Prats stated,

Puerto Rico has chosen to hold caucuses because they are “less expensive” than a primary, but the island may switch to a primary this time round, if the race is still competitive.

He expects the excitement over this election to encourage many Puerto Ricans to cast their vote for either Clinton or Obama. Unfortunately, for Puerto Ricans this is the only decent chance they have to make their voices heard in the U.S. government. They do not get the opportunity to vote in the general election and they have, but one non-voting representative in Congress.

It is of my opinion that the United States has reimposed colonial rule upon its neighbor. The U.S. grants citizenship and military protection to Puerto Ricans, but does not give them equal say in a government they are governed by. That is truly an abomination and exactly the same misrepresentation that the 13 colonies went through before they declared their independence. I am not advocating an independent Puerto Rico, but to me being a state is a black and white issue. They are just like a state in that their government is heavily influenced by ours. Just like any other U.S. state, they have an elected governor, a state system of government, and they have the privilege to vote for the U.S. Democratic nominee.  Puerto Rico, in my opinion, should become the 51st state.

Popularity: 7% [?]

Congress is once again trying to utilize the private sector as a scapegoat for the undesirable effects of poor policy and governance. Today, Executives from five major energy companies were grilled by Congress amidst the clamor of the American public on rising oil prices. Unfortunately, given the tone I have been reading in mainstream media, it appears that the government’s spin is being picked up and reported as gospel. This is an attempt to acquiesce voters frustrated by the economic burdens being borne from near-sighted transportation, foreign, economic, and energy policies by the U.S.

How unbalanced does it get? Well, here is a handy quote lifted from CNN’s article on this topic, “Normal supply and demand says prices should be around $55 to $60 a barrel,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the committee. This is a statement (whose legitimacy must be questioned, first of all…) that is intended to generate controversy and ignores basic facts pertaining to the situation.

The price of oil, as with many commodities in the world, is determined by many factors. Supply and Demand, while this is probably one of the most, if not the most, important factor, it is certainly not the only factor. Senator Patrick Leahy, whether out of ignorance or more nefarious motivations, has misled a great many people with his statement above regarding the supply and demand price curve for oil. He is ignoring the following factors:

• International Currency Exchange Rates
• Refining Capacity
• Geo-political factors in oil producing or refining nations
• World Demand - U.S. Demand is not an accurate barometer for the rest of the world as we have remained fairly stable in terms of petroleum demand since the 1970’s and industrializing nations are increasing their demand at much higher rates than the U.S.
• Cost of discovery and drilling oil deposits that are becoming harder to find and more difficult to harvest
• Forced supply restrictions (not allowing drilling for oil to occur in certain areas with known deposits)

My problem with this little Congressional lynching of executives lies within the currency exchange rate factor. This factor has proven to be extremely significant to recent oil prices, whether the media reports it or not. The fact remains, oil uses the U.S. Dollar as its cost basis. This means if the value of the dollar increases versus other currencies, the relative price of oil (controlling for supply/demand price issues) goes up for other currencies and down for the U.S. Dollar. The inverse is also true. Which leads us to today, where the value of the U.S. Dollar is down against other major world currencies anywhere from 13% to 30% over the past five years.

If you were to take the current per barrel price of oil (as reported $132 per barrel on 5/21/08) and adjust the U.S. Dollar’s strength to the level it was at on June 30, 2003, the price per barrel of oil would range from $95 to $100. While this does not coincide with the $55 to $60 per barrel price indicated by Senator Leahy, it certainly does account for one half of the discrepancy between the market price and the theoretical price suggested.

I now ask, “Is it Big Oil’s fault that the value of the U.S. Dollar has been decreasing versus other major world currencies?” No. Why? Because exchange rates are mostly determined by import/export balances, and budget deficit/surplus. Who is in control of those factors? The U.S. government has more influence over these factors than anyone else. By balancing the budget and adjusting trade policies and tariffs, the U.S. government has the ability to strengthen the Dollar, thus immediately decreasing the per barrel cost of oil. Granted, imported oil is a big reason why the U.S. operates at such an enormous trade deficit figure; however, this is also partially under the control of the U.S. government, who repeatedly refuses to open known oil deposits for drilling based on fear and propaganda from twenty years ago when people were in a frenzy over oil spills. Less oil imported, smaller trade deficit, stronger dollar, lower cost of oil per barrel.

There are many other methodologies that can be employed by the government to reduce the trade deficit and balance the budget, but none of these issues appear to be garnering attention from our elected officials. An apathetic approach to the strength of the Dollar is what concerns me the most as this will have a great impact on the price of almost every product, not just oil. Our economic fundamentals need to be corrected before we can expect to see our markets handling price fluctuations for a commodity such as oil with any semblance of stability. Don’t let Congress pin the bad rap on someone else, make them take ownership for that which they have neglected and admit the failures and faults which have led us to this dire economic situation. And then make them work for our best interests instead of organizing committees to talk to baseball players about steroids and bashing U.S. corporations for doing what they do (you know, run a profitable business which employs thousands of our citizens and brings billions in tax revenue to governments).

Popularity: 19% [?]

Let’s get one thing straight: the U.S. Federal Government will not let any major banking and/or lending institution go bankrupt. There may be an intermediary deal where another bank purchases the failing bank for pennies on the dollar (see JP Morgan Chase’s bail-out of Bear Stearns), but there will not be a full bankruptcy. I say this with such confidence for one reason, and the reason is something you have all seen every time you walk into a bank. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The brain child of Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg and Democratic Representative Henry Steagall, FDIC helped to bring back the people’s confidence in the U.S. Banking industry after the Great Depression.

Why does the FDIC ensure that no major bank will ever go bankrupt? The government does not want to lay out the necessary cash to depositors should the bank not be able to give their members’ money back in the event of closure. It’s true, the government charges every bank an insurance premium based on their relative risk, but that money (similarly to Social Security) gets invested into various financial securities. This would mean the withdrawal and disbursement of those funds.

The money set aside has only one purpose: in the event of a bank closure to make sure that everyone gets their deposits back according to the guidelines set down by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and its subsequent reformations. Why should this be a deal-breaker for the government? Administratively, it is a nightmare from both a cost and organizational perspective. Also, the less money in the FDIC fund, the less return being made in financial markets, the less there is to go around “just in case”. Oh, and there is the whole “have you ever seen the government give back money?” (except for Dubbya, whose economic stimulus is an ill-conceived plan as government spending is not decreasing but the pool of taxes to fund that spending is…enough said).

Let’s assume that a bank does indeed go bankrupt and no deal can be brokered with a stronger bank to purchase the deposits and assets of the failed bank. The FDIC now steps in to provide relief for the failed bank’s customers. Depending on the size of the bank the amount of deposits can be enormous. According to JP Morgan Chase’s 2007 Annual Report the bank had $11.466 billion in deposits. Not all of these deposits are FDIC insured. For the sake of putting some numbers to theory, let’s assume 75% of those deposits are FDIC insured. This equals a total of $8.6 billion of FDIC insured deposits that would have to be funded from the pool of FDIC money.

Guess what happens when someone sells off $8.6 billion in financial markets? Markets crash. Should the FDIC have to withdrawal a sum of money even a fraction of JPMorgan Chase’s deposits the stock market, bond market, and just about every other kind of market would fall to its knees. Since the whole point of being insured is so that people are confident in financial institutions, it is counterproductive to bring about the collapse of financial markets just to save a bank’s depositors. The depositors got their money back and will be confident, but the millions of people who lost countless dollars in the markets that day will have another viewpoint.

Popularity: 8% [?]

In an interesting turn of events, yesterday Hillary Clinton challenged Barack Obama to an old school debate. She challenged Obama to a Lincoln-Douglas debate without a moderator for 90 minutes. Her exact statement:

So here’s my proposal: I’m offering Senator Obama the chance to debate me one on one, no moderators. Just the two of us, going for 90 minutes, asking and answering questions.

A little background on the Lincoln-Douglas style of debate. It was basically a grueling and grinding series of direct Q & A between “Honest Abe” and Stephen Douglas to further their campaign for a U.S. Senate seat. Although Lincoln lost the election, the debates gave Lincoln enough exposure to win the Presidential Election three years later.

What makes Clinton’s challenge even more interesting is that Obama has already replied to the challenge stating “We’re not going to have debates between now and Indiana”. The next two primaries, in Indiana and North Carolina, will give the American people their Democratic nominee. Seeing what Obama is capable of, as a moving and captivating speaker, I am surprised to not see him taking this opportunity to further his campaign. Thus far, he has proven himself to be a composed and articulate candidate, reminding us of Bill Clinton. He has replied that he wants to spend more times going out and talking to the people, which is a nice reason, but ultimately I feel it’s an easy out for Obama to avoid confrontation. I would imagine that you would reach more people via televised debate. I personally think that Obama would crush Clinton, but perhaps he has the foresight to know that she would bait him into doing something stupid. However my respect for Clinton definitely improved a little bit (and I mean a little bit) by her latest proposal.

My proposal: They should hold the campaign on a wooden platform outside near Abe Lincoln’s old home.

Popularity: 11% [?]