In support of the “empty check”

The United States economy is clearly coming to its worst state since the 1929 depression; and the only way to keep us out of a mild depression is to bailout mortgage companies and loan banks. We made a mistake by letting Lehman Brothers fail, and we made the mistake by not bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac months ago. We have to stop threatening companies such as Country Wide with federal and state investigations that have no base or cause and affect on the American citizen; thus making stockholders pull out.

I am a fiscal conservative, but in a time of economic turbulence we need the government to get involved to avoid another severe recession.

The free market can not always bail itself out.

The opinions stated in this post are the views of Koko Chassid and not necessarily those of ThinkYouth.org

Rep. Kucinich offers a Main Street recovery plan

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past several weeks, you will know that the United States economy has continued its decline. This September 15th, Wall Street suffered its greatest losses since the September 11th terrorist attacks, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average slipping down 500 points in one day. Since then, the Dow Jones has fluctuated in between losses as large as 450 points and gains of over 100 points, and other major aspects of the Stock Market have behaved similarly. These economic problems on Wall Street has sent our leaders and those others in power scrambling for a solution. The “economic recovery plan” put forth by the Bush Administration was one offering a $700 billion bail-out to corporations on Wall Street. This economic recovery plan will use the tax-dollars of those working on Main Street to bail out those speculating on Wall Street, and it, in my view, demonstrates that the dynamic of corporate engagement is strong in Washington. Though this number may be cut slightly by Democrats in Congress, it is very likely that hundreds of billions of dollars will still be spent to bail out Wall Street. In opposing such a Wall Street recovery plan, Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich has been working on an alternative, comprehensive plan for a “Main Street economic recovery”, in which, it is stated, both the economy will be stimulated and a fair deal will be provided to the American people.

Read more

Chevron Realizes Transit is Good For the Earth

I’ve talked before about the energy and auto industry pretending to be green, but in the end all they encourage consumers to do is nice (and undeniably important) things like recycling and stream cleanups, while they keep pushing their environmentally harmful products like cars. In some instances they even bash using cleaner alternatives like buses.

Well there’s one company that seems to finally understand being clean is more than just buying a low energy light bulb. The company I wish to salute is Chevron, for their ad which simply says “I will leave the car at home more.”

Since I often bash said companies for being anti-transit and anti-urban I thought it would be good to point out one that seems to support alternatives.

Repeal CAFE, Save the Auto Industry

[cross-posted at Michigan Youth Political Alliance]

I stumbled upon an interesting Wall Street Journal article, “How to Save Detroit and Save $50 Billion,” and not to indulge in nostalgia over the auto industry’s golden days as I would never do that without feeling repusive, but this article (along with others I found in my research), convinced me that CAFE or Corporate Average Fuel Economy is bunk for the most part and that scrapping it could salvage whatever dignity automakers still have left.

CAFE was a policy first established in 1975 to force auto makers to meet fuel-efficiency standards (e.g. so many miles per gallon) in light of the 1973 Arab oil embargo. It’s purpose was to ween ourselves off from foreign oil dependency, to create more fuel-efficient cars, and to satisfy the American consumers. Fast forward 33 years and auto makers are begging for $50 billion from Congress to help them cover the $100 billion in costs they need to pay to meet CAFE standards.

I never considered mileage standards to be at the root of the problem, but it is awfully close. In other nations, auto makers are not forced to meet mileage standards. Instead, they make fuel-efficient cars because it is profitable. In the market, consumers have a high demand for light, compact, fuel-efficient cars. However, making fuel-efficient cars in the United States have only recently become profitable with the high gas prices. Previously, the hottest cars on the market were the SUVS, pickup trucks and minivans. I’m not saying that their gas guzzling qualities are good, but if that’s what Americans want, then let them have it. By forcing auto makers to meet mileage standards, they had to divert billions of dollars worth of capital from designing, manufacturing, services, and the likes towards researching and developing fuel efficiency, an ultimately unprofitable area for the long term.

CAFE was instituted with auto safety and reducing consumption in mind. However, it has failed on both fronts. Mileage standards have forced auto makers to develop smaller, more lightweight cars that are more suspectible to crashes. The Heritage Foundation delivers some reliable and powerful data on this issue:

More than 25 years ago, research established that drivers of larger, heavier cars have lower risks in crashes than do drivers of smaller, lighter cars. 7 A 2000 study by Leonard Evans, now the president of the Science Serving Society in Michigan, found that adding a passenger to one of two identical cars involved in a two-car frontal crash reduces the driver fatality risk by 7.5 percent. 8 If the cars differ in mass by more than a passenger’s weight, adding a passenger to the lighter car will reduce total risk. 9

The Evans findings reinforce a 1989 study by economists Robert Crandall of the Brookings Institution and John Graham of the Harvard School of Public Health, who found that the weight of the average American automobile has been reduced 23 percent since 1974, much of this reduction a result of CAFE regulations. 10 Crandall and Graham stated that “the negative relationship between weight and occupant fatality risk is one of the most secure findings in the safety literature.” 11

On the issue of consumption, consumers have obviously not reduced their gas consumption in the last 33 years since CAFE was passed in Congress. By purchasing fuel-efficient cars, the consumer mindset is thinking that it is perfectly justifiable to drive those cars more than normal. Thus, extended driving leads to a ton more gas being burned. This is the case in most instances because of something called the “rebound effect,” something that makes sense with all technology. As things get easier to do, people want to do it more. The same Heritage article highlights this as well:

Advocates of higher CAFE standards argue that increasing miles per gallon will reduce gas consumption. What they fail to mention is the well-known “rebound effect”–greater energy efficiency leads to greater energy consumption. A recent article in The Wall Street Journal noted that in the 19th century, British economist Stanley Jevons found that coal consumption initially decreased by one-third after James Watt’s new, efficient steam engine began replacing older, more energy-hungry engines. 13 But in the ensuing years (1830 to 1863), consumption increased tenfold–the engines were cheaper to run and thus were used more often than the older, less efficient models. In short, greater efficiency produced more energy use, not less.

The same principle applies to CAFE standards. A more fuel-efficient vehicle costs less to drive per mile, so vehicle mileage increases. As the author of The Wall Street Journal article notes, “[s]ince 1970, the United States has made cars almost 50% more efficient; in that period of time, the average number of miles a person drives has doubled.” 14 This increase certainly offsets a portion of the gains made in fuel efficiency from government mandated standards.

In result, our dependency on foreign oil has grown, our own auto industry has declined to the point of near failure and our consumers are, well, not doing too badly. Well, except for the fact that their tax payers are going to be paying for the auto makers struggle to meet mileage mandates. We should seriously rethink how we can pull auto makers out of their pit of despair, and abolishing CAFE standards can be a start.

[cross-posted at Michigan Youth Political Alliance]

Thirteen Cars and Seven Houses?

It looks like John McCain has been caught in another lie, he has previously said he only owns American built cars, but government records show he owns thirteen cars, and two of them are foreign made, one is a Honda, the other is a Volkswagen.

In addition to the foreign made cars, McCain has a lot of gas guzzlers including a 2007 half-ton Ford pickup truck, a 2008 Jeep Wrangler, and a 2001 GMC SUV.

How many cars do the Obama’s own? Just one, a Ford Escape Hybrid. They also own only one house, yet for some reason they still call Obama the elisist and McCain the workingmans man.

Michigan Blogger On Board

Hello! My name is Dexter Zhuang, and I am a new Think Youth blogger hailing from the ‘burbs of Southeastern Michigan. I am excited to help out the cause! A senior of Novi High School, I avidly participate in lovely activities such as of Debate, Forensics, Model UN, City Youth Council and others. Debate is the one that takes up the most time but has helped me achieve the most success.

I am the Editor-in-Chief of the Michigan Youth Political Alliance, a youth community blog much like this one that I started no more than two months ago. Blogging is my passion and has afforded me opportunities I could not have found anywhere else. For example, through blogging I have collaborated with MiVote, a student political YouTube for my state, to increase student political awareness and participated in the Emerging Leaders Forum, a discussion between young adults 16-35 years of age on how to make progress in our beloved state, at The Center For Michigan.

In the summer of 2007, I attended Operation Bentley, a city and state government program at Albion College. In the summer of 2008, I attended the Ben Franklin Transatlantic Institute, an international student diplomacy program at Wake Forest University, as one of 12 Americans. There, I took a class on media and blogging taught by Dr. Ross Smith of Wake Forest and was hooked immediately. Since then, I have become extremely active in the blogging world.

My political opinions are mostly liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues. However, I hardly consider myself a libertarian. I just think that the engine of economic growth lies with the private sector though the government should sometimes prime the engine a bit. I am a big fan of Thomas Friedman’s economic concepts.

In my past time, I love playing ultimate frisbee and going out for sushi. I enjoy going to rock concerts and large social events. My hopes and goals for the near future include traveling the world–namely European countries–and finishing up my college applications. In the far future, I would like to work in some field related to business, government and law, perhaps as a lawyer or professor.

A Moment of E-Silence

At lunch today, a good friend of mine asked our table what we all thought about having a moment of silence during school for the victims of 9/11. Everybody agreed that it was a good idea, but I didn’t say anything. Not because I didn’t agree with everybody else, I just thought the question had a pretty obvious answer. Then he turned to me specifically and said “And I’m guessing that you have something wrong with that…”

I’m not that cynical that I don’t believe in moments of silence, and my friend isn’t stupid, he’s just been sucked in by the Fox News style propaganda that anybody who is liberal or doesn’t support the George Bush 90% of the time is a bad person whose dissent supports terrorism. Of course, that’s crazy talk.

Just in case, let me make this perfectly clear: I support moments of silence on September 11th. In fact, right here I’ll have an emoment of silence. Please take some time to reflect on all the tragedies throughout the world: Iraq, Darfur, Israel, Palestine, and all the rest, but more importantly, let’s remember September 11th, 2001. And not for trying to pin the blame on somebody, but to make sure we don’t forget what that was like to be attacked, and to remember the victims who’s lives were cut short so unjustly.

I was helping a friend the other day write a story which mentioned September 11th, and we couldn’t think of the right verb for the attacks. Finally, we settled on describing it like a cancer invading the towers that day. And it was certainly settling. I’m not sure that anybody is ever going to find the right words.

America did learn one thing from 9/11 though, and it is something that we need to remember in the coming months as the election approaches and our words get ever more vicious. We can unite as one people, and we are more the same than different.

Crossposted at We’re Quite Hostile

Barack Obama, President

For months I have been mulling a Bob Barr endorsement. But after some consideration, I will reluctantly support Barack Obama.

In the first months of the primaries, I supported libertarian Ron Paul, since I am a libertarian. If Ron Paul would have won the Republican nomination, I am confident he would win in a landslide. But once it was inevitable that Paul had lost the nomination after loses in Iowa and New Hampshire he did fairly well in Nevada and won in Louisiana - people will tell you McCain won it, but Paul did - I endorsed Bill Richardson.

Shortly after that Richardson dropped out, and I endorsed the last good candidate left in the race, Hillary Clinton. I felt Hillary had the executive experience, and that Senator Obama’s only executive experience was on the board of Chicago’s Annenberg challenge, which is not presidential.

Obama was a state Senator, only active in the US Senate for 146 days, whoever supported him in the primaries (nearly 18 million voters) must have been high on something! But Hillary Clinton (a little over 18 million votes) had the experience to be president. But once Joe Biden was picked, I knew Barack Obama was walking away from just saying “change” and “hope” to focusing on the issues like Hillary Clinton.

Bob Barr seems like a good candidate with seven percent of responders in today’s Rasmussen tracking poll choosing someone besides Obama or McCain. But he still seems like a waste of a vote.

And so I reluctantly support Senator Barack Obama for president.

Not Change

McCain is not change, and neither is his wing man, Pallin. Obama is the change candidate, he is the candidate that used the change platform. Since the Republican convention it seems the Same Old Party has been trying to adopt change as it’s new name, with little challenge from Obama (swift boats anyone?). However Barack Obama is now visibly hitting back in an email he sent to supporters this afternoon:

[McCain's] new ad uses what news organizations are calling “naked lies” to reinvent two politicians whose records embody the same culture of corruption and far-right policies we’ve seen from the Bush administration.

The biggest whopper in the ad (that’s still being repeated day after day by McCain and Palin on the campaign trail) is that Governor Palin stopped the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” — in fact, she supported it, and even hired a lobbyist in Washington to get more pork-barrel projects like it.

If the McCain-Palin campaign wants to have a debate about who is prepared to bring the change we need, we’re more than ready.

More than this not being change, the McCain story has been floundering on their experience equals judgment claims too. It seems they can’t use judgment to come up with their own campaign motto’s (the best judgment would be actually joining the progressive platform, not just using it’s campaign language).

Why I support Ralph Nader for President

These days, everybody’s talking about Barack Obama and John McCain. It’s true that Barack Obama and John McCain are not without merit. They both have a measure of honor and integrity: McCain bravely served his country in the military, enduring torture, and Obama, by choice, became a community organizer in Chicago rather than a rich businessman or lawyer, as he could have done. I recognize that, for progressives, “Barack-my-world” Obama is the better, more viable alternative to John McInsane. I recognize that, for conservatives, John McDreamy is the better, more viable alternative to Barack Obama-mania. However, more importantly, I recognize that, for me, Ralph Nader is the best alternative to Barack Obama and John McCain. It seems to me that there is only one main viewpoint on this ThinkYouth website: Barack Obama for President—End of story. Political discussion is mostly limited to the Democratic and Republican nominees for President. In this country, both sides, Republicans and Democrats, dislike and are afraid of the other—enough to vote for one candidate for fear that the opposing candidate may get elected, which is something regarded as dangerous by both sides.

As a result, many people may be turned off by a third-party candidacy. You may be wondering why exactly I am supporting Ralph Nader, of all people, for President of the United States. The answer consists of two main aspects: Nader’s career and history serving citizens of the United States (taking on corporations and the powerful time after time, advocating for consumer safety); and his progressive, intelligent, and civic-minded thoughts on the issues. Frankly, these two aspects make Nader completely different from the two major-party candidates. These things make him unique, irreplaceable, independent, worthy of a vote.

Read more

A little about me…

My name is Charlee Ottersberg, and I am a High School Student in Colorado, a main focus for this years elections. I enjoy engaging myself in challenging courses, as well as debates with my fellow classmates. I plan on starting a debate club at my school within the next year.

I do not consider myself Democratic or Republican, but in the middle, Independent. I am not going to base my vote (although i cannot) on party guidelines. I have always enjoyed politics, but ever since the recent year, i have become engagingly more interested. I believe that the youth in America should have some sort of influence on how the delegates vote, considering their decision also effects us. I am excited to be a part of the Think Youth Writing staff.

NoFX and My Sub Prime Mortgages Rant

This entry is cross-posted at my blog We’re Quite Hostile where my friend and I write mostly about music and politics.

I was just listening to one of my favorite songs by the punk band NoFX, “The Irrationality Of Rationality”, and apparently I haven’t listened to it in a year because I’m only just now realizing how perfectly it fits with the subprime mortgage crisis. It could be that NoFX traveled into the future, but I’d say it is more likely that history just repeats itself much quicker than we like to admit.

Here’s the song. Have a listen, but be warned, the lyrics could be considered explicit.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raSSuQt5alY[/youtube] Read more

Sarah Palin’s Baby Bonanza

Reports are circulating that, Sarah Palin’s daughter is 5 months pregnant.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin announced moments ago that her 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is five months pregnant.

This cannot be good news for John McCain, and will definitely hurt him with the evangelical community in the Republican Party.

Also there maybe another problem for the McCain campaign. When Palin previously announced her pregnancy, many doubted that she was pregnant. She apparently gave a speech right after her water broke. And her daughter, Bristol, missed school for 5 months for what was reported as, “mono”. However, the McCain campaign has denied this, the campaign announced the pregnancy to rebut rumors about the older son, Trig.

The second Palin Problem for the McCain campaign is Palin’s involvement in the “Wooten and Monegan” case:

The little-known vice presidential candidate faces accusations of firing public safety commissioner Walt Monegan in what amounts to a messy Palin family drama dating to her pre-gubernatorial days. Monegan had refused to fire a state trooper who had divorced Palin’s sister.

The third Palin Problem for the McCain campaign is what would be a clear conflict of interest, Palin’s husband Todd, is reported to for BP. This of course is esspecially troubling because Palin worked as director on Alaska’s oil and gas commission

It seems as if McCain did a poor job vetting Gov. Palin, the more we know, the better it gets.