I believe Christa Vargo hit the nail on the head when she wrote her blog post "Has Government Sold Out?". She feels that there should be a cap on political contributions to limit the need for politicians to sell their votes for donations and to enable them to start focusing on what the people really want.
I agree completely. I also agree that if we place a limit on total contributions it will allow more people into the field that previously would have no chance at winning because they could not raise the same level of funds. Our politicians are so focused on money and so many of the top "1%" of money makers are running the government that it is hard for them to objectively makes laws and run our country in a way that really benefits the majority instead of running it in a way that benefits mostly the rich (themselves).
In the link she shared that shows that money really does win elections, I was appalled to find out that Obama declined the use the public financing that is offered to top ticket candidates and still significantly beat out McCain on money for his election. It is virtually like buying a seat in congress or buying a presidency. This has got to stop. There is no reason why they need to spend a million or more to be elected and with each candidate that raises more, it raises the price it takes to win. This link she shared was perfect for her points. It spells out everything that she was saying. Overall, this was a great opinion piece and I really enjoyed reading it.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Red and Blue
I have been mulling over the differences between Republican and Democrats. I find both of them valid and at the same time flawed.
If Republicans truly want more state oversight and regulation and less government interaction, then where are all the state laws that we need to protect the citizens from money hungry corporations? Why do we not see more Republicans swarming state capitals and influencing more state government issues? If they truly believe in less national government and more state government, they can't expect to walk up to Washington D.C., strip away all of the big government and say "We've fixed all our problems." If the first thing they do is strip away big government then they have effectively left the public at a huge disadvantage. I find it compelling that Texas, being such a Red state, has effectively dismantled our state level government instead of making it bigger. The true idea would be to build up strong state governments and then seek to dismantle the national laws that are redundant. Then as a nation we could ease off expecting the national government to take care of our needs and trust in the states to take care of us.
As for Democrats, I personally am leaving my Republican roots and leaning left more regularly because I feel businesses will not regulate themselves. It has been proven repeatedly that businesses will cheat, lie, steal and abuse their consumers and workers. The states have not protected us well enough and an incident with an insurance company proves the point. In 2008 Conesco had to pay around $32 million because their subsidiaries wrongfully denied claims, delayed claims and misled their elderly costumers. We feel like the states are not protecting us, so the government should step up to the plate. The flaw here is that this is exactly opposite of what the founders of the constitution wanted for us. The Bill of Rights wasn't even supposed to be applied to the states. It was truly only to be applied at a federal level and was almost left out entirely because many of the founders believed the states would be responsible for regulation. We were truly supposed to be independent states where each state could have completely different laws, united only for minimal purposes. I guess I lean more to the left because our 200+ year track record of states regulating things doesn't bode well for the future.
I don't know if there is a better way than what we have going for us now. Sometimes I wonder if we had more options, multiple parties, if that would help address these issues, but right now it seems that any third party (on a presidential level) only serves to detract votes from the only two parties that obtain anywhere close to enough votes to win. However protests and taking test cases before the Supreme Court does seem to have an impact on how laws are seen and used. I guess time will only tell what can make a definite change.
If Republicans truly want more state oversight and regulation and less government interaction, then where are all the state laws that we need to protect the citizens from money hungry corporations? Why do we not see more Republicans swarming state capitals and influencing more state government issues? If they truly believe in less national government and more state government, they can't expect to walk up to Washington D.C., strip away all of the big government and say "We've fixed all our problems." If the first thing they do is strip away big government then they have effectively left the public at a huge disadvantage. I find it compelling that Texas, being such a Red state, has effectively dismantled our state level government instead of making it bigger. The true idea would be to build up strong state governments and then seek to dismantle the national laws that are redundant. Then as a nation we could ease off expecting the national government to take care of our needs and trust in the states to take care of us.
As for Democrats, I personally am leaving my Republican roots and leaning left more regularly because I feel businesses will not regulate themselves. It has been proven repeatedly that businesses will cheat, lie, steal and abuse their consumers and workers. The states have not protected us well enough and an incident with an insurance company proves the point. In 2008 Conesco had to pay around $32 million because their subsidiaries wrongfully denied claims, delayed claims and misled their elderly costumers. We feel like the states are not protecting us, so the government should step up to the plate. The flaw here is that this is exactly opposite of what the founders of the constitution wanted for us. The Bill of Rights wasn't even supposed to be applied to the states. It was truly only to be applied at a federal level and was almost left out entirely because many of the founders believed the states would be responsible for regulation. We were truly supposed to be independent states where each state could have completely different laws, united only for minimal purposes. I guess I lean more to the left because our 200+ year track record of states regulating things doesn't bode well for the future.
I don't know if there is a better way than what we have going for us now. Sometimes I wonder if we had more options, multiple parties, if that would help address these issues, but right now it seems that any third party (on a presidential level) only serves to detract votes from the only two parties that obtain anywhere close to enough votes to win. However protests and taking test cases before the Supreme Court does seem to have an impact on how laws are seen and used. I guess time will only tell what can make a definite change.
Monday, November 7, 2011
The War on Drugs
My fellow classmate, Caroline Bassett's, wrote an article titled, "The War On Drugs - Where Tax Dollars Go to Die." I would have to say I agree with her for the most part. She notes that we began the "war on drugs" in '71 and we have little to nothing to show for the 40 years worth of fighting. It got me thinking and if you compare that to the 9 year war we have waged in Iraq, Americans are fed up with the battle and crying out to have our troops returned, yet no one is tired of the 40 years of battle against drugs where we have gained little to nothing.
If we range farther back in history, we can even ask the question, when has prohibiting a specific drug ever ended well? We had the opium wars, alcohol prohibition and now the war on drugs. The sad thing is that the ban on drugs only gives jobs to cartels and mob bosses and propagates killing sprees, terror and fear. If we legalize drugs, then it becomes common place and the drug cartels and mob bosses have actually lost their foothold on the market. At least, so the theory goes.
Personally I am against drug use, but it is evident that to stop the increase in crime over drugs we actually have to allow it. The same holds true with Alcohol. We legalized it because the ban on it caused more problems than the actual substance ever did on it's own. As a citizen, spending $1700 on tuition for one semester of classes gives me pause. It is hard to write that check, and our government should have pause when writing that check basically every second of every day, especially when they have to realize that money goes towards making a bad problem worse.
If we range farther back in history, we can even ask the question, when has prohibiting a specific drug ever ended well? We had the opium wars, alcohol prohibition and now the war on drugs. The sad thing is that the ban on drugs only gives jobs to cartels and mob bosses and propagates killing sprees, terror and fear. If we legalize drugs, then it becomes common place and the drug cartels and mob bosses have actually lost their foothold on the market. At least, so the theory goes.
Personally I am against drug use, but it is evident that to stop the increase in crime over drugs we actually have to allow it. The same holds true with Alcohol. We legalized it because the ban on it caused more problems than the actual substance ever did on it's own. As a citizen, spending $1700 on tuition for one semester of classes gives me pause. It is hard to write that check, and our government should have pause when writing that check basically every second of every day, especially when they have to realize that money goes towards making a bad problem worse.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Politics Failing
I find it interesting that President Obama can challenge Republicans to offer a jobs plan that can be assessed by outside analysts and win similarly good marks as his own jobs plan, and the Republicans still complain. For the first time in Obama's presidency I feel like he is fighting for what he believes in. I don’t discredit him for seeking common ground during most of his term though, because compromise could be reached and he still accomplished things. However, since the beginning of the summer the public, and the White House, has seen that compromise is slow in coming and nothing is getting achieved that way. So Obama has taken on more of a firm stance and has decided to demand that something be done about the jobs situation immediately. This is not contradictory to his prior stance, it shows that he can adapt to each situation and apply the necessary pressure required in each situation based on it’s own merits.
On the other hand, Republicans have not come up with a single alternative to the jobs bill that Obama put forth and all they are doing is sitting around complaining that he is wrong and his plan won't work. Stopping Obama’s plan and not doing anything else is only going to make our situation worse. If we have to do something and the only thing on the table is Obamas plan, then the Republicans either need to come up with a competing plan that gets equally as good marks or they need to make the necessary compromises and let Obama’s plan go through. On the plus side for them, if Obama’s plan fails then the Republicans can basically walk into the white house on election day. It's a win-win for them. Either the economy gets better and we praise our Congress for helping or the plan fails and Republicans get the Presidency.
Overall, I can see why less Americans are participating in politics. It is out of control with too much division and not enough compromise. I would be surprised if the political system can even keep going at this rate. The lack of any appearance of bipartisanship is eating away at American’s trust in the system and too much distrust in the system always leads to a change of some nature.
On the other hand, Republicans have not come up with a single alternative to the jobs bill that Obama put forth and all they are doing is sitting around complaining that he is wrong and his plan won't work. Stopping Obama’s plan and not doing anything else is only going to make our situation worse. If we have to do something and the only thing on the table is Obamas plan, then the Republicans either need to come up with a competing plan that gets equally as good marks or they need to make the necessary compromises and let Obama’s plan go through. On the plus side for them, if Obama’s plan fails then the Republicans can basically walk into the white house on election day. It's a win-win for them. Either the economy gets better and we praise our Congress for helping or the plan fails and Republicans get the Presidency.
Overall, I can see why less Americans are participating in politics. It is out of control with too much division and not enough compromise. I would be surprised if the political system can even keep going at this rate. The lack of any appearance of bipartisanship is eating away at American’s trust in the system and too much distrust in the system always leads to a change of some nature.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Cain and his 9-9-9
I have been waiting to see someone talk about Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan. It immediately struck me as way too simplistic to be feasible but since he was not considered a top candidate no one paid him much attention. However with the straw poll in Florida saying he is a contender, people are starting to constructively pick apart his campaign.
It seems there is no consensus about how Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan will affect our nation. However, in the blog, Talking Points Memo, it is obvious Author Brian Beutler is not for it. He discusses how Cain's plan will not bring in enough revenues and it will force the government to downsize in some very important areas. Beutler also points out that Cain would like to tack on an extra rule that if a future Congress were to make adjustments to his tax plan, that it would require a 2/3 vote in the Senate. I personally do not see any government organization willingly writing in a strict limit on itself for the future, especially not on a tax rate. However, even if Cain does get elected, this tax plan would likely hit a roadblock in legislation just as Obama is hitting right now with his jobs bill.
I see possible promise with the 9% corporate tax. However, I find it interesting that everywhere I read, people seem to be saying that the big companies pay 26% in taxes, but when it comes down to what they actually pay after deductions, that figure is just not true. So since a lot of big businesses use loopholes and massive deductions and pay little to no taxes, it seems like forcing them to at least pay 9% might actually bring in some money for the government. So that part of Cain's plan really has me interested to see if it could work. The 9% tax for families might be a tough one though. I know families also get a lot of deductions and if you start taking money out of their pockets right now then it could further dampen our sluggish economy, which is a move we can not afford right now.
To be quite honest, in the end, if we do not elect someone that congress will work with then we will be stuck right where we are with Obama, going no where fast. I have a feeling Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan would only serve to polarized Congress further and leave our nation in a rut for at least another 4 years. I do not know all the answers, and the media's coverage on this plan has left me asking more questions than before, but I do know I will be keeping my eye on Cain for sure and I am interested to see how much the media will jump in.
It seems there is no consensus about how Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan will affect our nation. However, in the blog, Talking Points Memo, it is obvious Author Brian Beutler is not for it. He discusses how Cain's plan will not bring in enough revenues and it will force the government to downsize in some very important areas. Beutler also points out that Cain would like to tack on an extra rule that if a future Congress were to make adjustments to his tax plan, that it would require a 2/3 vote in the Senate. I personally do not see any government organization willingly writing in a strict limit on itself for the future, especially not on a tax rate. However, even if Cain does get elected, this tax plan would likely hit a roadblock in legislation just as Obama is hitting right now with his jobs bill.
I see possible promise with the 9% corporate tax. However, I find it interesting that everywhere I read, people seem to be saying that the big companies pay 26% in taxes, but when it comes down to what they actually pay after deductions, that figure is just not true. So since a lot of big businesses use loopholes and massive deductions and pay little to no taxes, it seems like forcing them to at least pay 9% might actually bring in some money for the government. So that part of Cain's plan really has me interested to see if it could work. The 9% tax for families might be a tough one though. I know families also get a lot of deductions and if you start taking money out of their pockets right now then it could further dampen our sluggish economy, which is a move we can not afford right now.
To be quite honest, in the end, if we do not elect someone that congress will work with then we will be stuck right where we are with Obama, going no where fast. I have a feeling Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan would only serve to polarized Congress further and leave our nation in a rut for at least another 4 years. I do not know all the answers, and the media's coverage on this plan has left me asking more questions than before, but I do know I will be keeping my eye on Cain for sure and I am interested to see how much the media will jump in.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
The downfall of American news
I keep hearing the American people are poorly educated about politics especially when compared to generations past. This has bothered me, but I couldn't put my finger on the deeper reason behind this trend until I was reading the article "That's Infotainment!" by Matt Nisbet. He really summed it up when he shared that, "[this new generation has the ability to] virtually ignore the news altogether, choosing alternative programming."
In past generations they did not have tball, karate, dance, volleyball, basketball and every other assortment of things weighing on a persons schedule. Once someone left work they were relatively free to socialize or stay home and watch TV. The big difference? If they watched TV, they were virtually forced to watch the news. Every tv station had a news program. With newspapers, people had enough time to stop and read the newspaper from cover to cover. As compared to now, people have a choice and they choose to watch Grey's Anatomy, Desperate Housewives, Jersey Shore or whatever entertaining show they are captivated with. This has driven the mass media to try and add entertainment value to the news, thus diluting it and making it less trustworthy, in turn making people less educated about important issues even when they think they are extremely educated.
It is the power of choice and the downfall of good/honest journalism. I wish I lived in the time of Walter Cronkite. Wow. What a journalistic legend and you knew if he was telling you something that it was to be taken seriously. I don't know that there is a single journalist alive today that I can take as seriously as the world took Cronkite. What a shame. What a shame that people choose not to watch the news, and what a shame the news is just about selling advertising and getting viewers and doing whatever it takes to do that. I could rant more, but I suppose I'll stop here. you get the point.
In past generations they did not have tball, karate, dance, volleyball, basketball and every other assortment of things weighing on a persons schedule. Once someone left work they were relatively free to socialize or stay home and watch TV. The big difference? If they watched TV, they were virtually forced to watch the news. Every tv station had a news program. With newspapers, people had enough time to stop and read the newspaper from cover to cover. As compared to now, people have a choice and they choose to watch Grey's Anatomy, Desperate Housewives, Jersey Shore or whatever entertaining show they are captivated with. This has driven the mass media to try and add entertainment value to the news, thus diluting it and making it less trustworthy, in turn making people less educated about important issues even when they think they are extremely educated.
It is the power of choice and the downfall of good/honest journalism. I wish I lived in the time of Walter Cronkite. Wow. What a journalistic legend and you knew if he was telling you something that it was to be taken seriously. I don't know that there is a single journalist alive today that I can take as seriously as the world took Cronkite. What a shame. What a shame that people choose not to watch the news, and what a shame the news is just about selling advertising and getting viewers and doing whatever it takes to do that. I could rant more, but I suppose I'll stop here. you get the point.
Monday, September 26, 2011
The Electoral College
I have always thought the concept of the electoral college was a little weird and I know the majority of Americans want to change or get rid of it, but what Harold Meyerson addresses in his article "The GOP is Trying to Rig the Electoral College," makes me angry. His article in the Washington Post discusses that in Pennsylvania, Senate Majority Leader, Dominic Pileggi (R), has proposed to change the way the electoral college's votes are apportioned to a way that is shifty and down right unacceptable.
Pileggi's idea is to change the state from purely a majority vote awarding all the electoral votes in that state, to each district getting a corresponding electoral vote. At first it sounds fair enough, but it could allow the minority to have more electoral votes. For example, if in his state 200,000 people are crammed into 3 districts who vote for 'president A' and then 50,000 people are spread out in 12 districts who vote for 'president B', then the 200,000 only get 3 electoral votes and the 50,000 would get 12. This results in electing a president based off the votes of a smaller percentage of the population. Perhaps Pileggi thinks he has sound reasoning behind this idea, but the facts speak for themselves. We can not allow a smaller number of people to dictate where electoral votes are going to go. I am concerned with any representative that would support such a proposition. Who are these people we have elected into office to take care of us and why are they taking care of themselves and not the citizens? Somewhere along the way, our entire system created too much room for corruption, which is sad because that is what the founding fathers were trying to prevent.
It is obvious that in this article Harold Meyerson is talking directly to the public about this problem. When it comes down to it, I know very few honest citizens who would be comfortable with Pileggi's proposition. Meyerson wants to rant about this injustice, but he also wants the public to become educated on this topic because with education comes people standing up for what is right. As far as Meyerson's credibility, he has been an editor for a political magazine and for the L.A. Weekly for some time, as well as a radio host. I feel he has quite a political background and his response to this issue is well educated. As far as his claim, I would have to agree with his outrage on this issue; his logic is spot on and his evidence from the sources he references is solid. He did his homework when writing this article and it is hard to believe that Pileggi would even propose such a self-serving idea.
Pileggi's idea is to change the state from purely a majority vote awarding all the electoral votes in that state, to each district getting a corresponding electoral vote. At first it sounds fair enough, but it could allow the minority to have more electoral votes. For example, if in his state 200,000 people are crammed into 3 districts who vote for 'president A' and then 50,000 people are spread out in 12 districts who vote for 'president B', then the 200,000 only get 3 electoral votes and the 50,000 would get 12. This results in electing a president based off the votes of a smaller percentage of the population. Perhaps Pileggi thinks he has sound reasoning behind this idea, but the facts speak for themselves. We can not allow a smaller number of people to dictate where electoral votes are going to go. I am concerned with any representative that would support such a proposition. Who are these people we have elected into office to take care of us and why are they taking care of themselves and not the citizens? Somewhere along the way, our entire system created too much room for corruption, which is sad because that is what the founding fathers were trying to prevent.
It is obvious that in this article Harold Meyerson is talking directly to the public about this problem. When it comes down to it, I know very few honest citizens who would be comfortable with Pileggi's proposition. Meyerson wants to rant about this injustice, but he also wants the public to become educated on this topic because with education comes people standing up for what is right. As far as Meyerson's credibility, he has been an editor for a political magazine and for the L.A. Weekly for some time, as well as a radio host. I feel he has quite a political background and his response to this issue is well educated. As far as his claim, I would have to agree with his outrage on this issue; his logic is spot on and his evidence from the sources he references is solid. He did his homework when writing this article and it is hard to believe that Pileggi would even propose such a self-serving idea.
Friday, September 23, 2011
This ticks me off
Congress is making a fool of itself and if anyone up there wants to stay in their post they need to watch what they are doing to their constituents back home. I was reading the USA Today website and found a current article talking about how the government is on the verge of a near shut down. again. AGAIN! Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said it all when he said "Americans are tired of this partisanship. They deserve to know that when disasters strike, we will be there to help them." This division is killing them and us. We need more people to stand up and say "Let's put on our big boy pants today and actually work on a compromise."
Do these congessman/women think that what they are doing is right? Or is it just a case of ignorance and showboating. I looked up showboating, it fits so perfectly, it means to exhibit a grotesque amount of undue and unfounded pride for a skill or ability which is actually mediocre. Yep. Congress is mediocre and the public opinion reflects it; congress is sitting at a 15% approval rating. They are a bunch of do-nothings and worst than that, they are a bunch of stop-everythings. These kinds of behaviors are only going to hurt them.
Plus, the fact that they must wait until the 11th hour to do anything is very telling and it breaks my heart, which in turn ticks me off. If they must wait until the absolutely last possible minute to work out something that will keep their own jobs moving, then how motivated are they to honestly getting other peoples jobs moving? It doesn't look promising for the American public. What bothers me the most is that after Labor Day Obama addressed Congress and said that if they planned to wait until we elected a new president to start moving things along, that it would be a long wait for the citizens who don't have jobs or need help. That comment really resonated with me and to be honest it worries me because it looks like that is the exactly the plan of congress and countless Americans will suffer for their stubbornness. God. Bless. America (we need it).
Do these congessman/women think that what they are doing is right? Or is it just a case of ignorance and showboating. I looked up showboating, it fits so perfectly, it means to exhibit a grotesque amount of undue and unfounded pride for a skill or ability which is actually mediocre. Yep. Congress is mediocre and the public opinion reflects it; congress is sitting at a 15% approval rating. They are a bunch of do-nothings and worst than that, they are a bunch of stop-everythings. These kinds of behaviors are only going to hurt them.
Plus, the fact that they must wait until the 11th hour to do anything is very telling and it breaks my heart, which in turn ticks me off. If they must wait until the absolutely last possible minute to work out something that will keep their own jobs moving, then how motivated are they to honestly getting other peoples jobs moving? It doesn't look promising for the American public. What bothers me the most is that after Labor Day Obama addressed Congress and said that if they planned to wait until we elected a new president to start moving things along, that it would be a long wait for the citizens who don't have jobs or need help. That comment really resonated with me and to be honest it worries me because it looks like that is the exactly the plan of congress and countless Americans will suffer for their stubbornness. God. Bless. America (we need it).
California Rep. Debate
Ok ok, it took me forever to finish watching this debate and make my post! But here are my thoughts on the California Republican Debate, forgive my grammar and writing, I'm just getting my thoughts on paper..... rather, the web.
Overall, I really enjoyed the cohesiveness of the republicans. They really refused to be divided all that much. They were determined to beat Obama and find the best candidate to do so and less interested in tearing apart the other candidates. Kudos to them! They took the high road.
Right out of the box the thing that stinks me is a lot of the candidates continue to say "If I get elected, on day one, I'm going to do _____." That killed me. #1 Do they really think the American public is so stupid to think that they can do that all on their own? #2 I sure hope they aren't diluted enough to think that they really can do all that immediately? If they could, then our country would change drastically every time we got a new president. I hope for their sake that it is just political lingo and not a true belief that they can really make such changes on day one without having to go through any processes.
They brought up Social Security a lot. I feel like Perry will end up with the young vote since he is appealing to their concern that it won't last long enough for them to receive it. robbing the program to pay other people. Even on this issue Perry and Romney refused to let the questions divide them. I think in general the mass media are trying to polarize this idea that Social Security is a ponzi scheme, but what they don't understand is that Perry is just trying to get people talking about. Sure there are some key differences, yes the public is aware, yes it isn't optional, so by pure definition it may not be a ponzi scheme, but what Perry and Romney are wanting people to see is that it is not going to work long term without some major changes. I have to agree and I think most of my generation agrees with that concern as well.
On the topic of the HPV vaccine. Bachman was trying to make this issue divisive and she said it isn't right for the government to force people to take a vaccine. However, we have a lot of mandates for childrens vaccines already. Kids can't go to school without certain shots and they must provide a shot record in order to register for school. So that isn't a valid way to oppose Perry's initiative. On another note, by age 50, 80% of women in america have HPV, and it is known to be a cause for cancer. I am with Perry on this. Any other disease or cancer of the body that can be prevented would have been on the vaccine list long ago. It doesn't make sense that this one would be excluded. Something needs to be done, I think Perry was right in what he did. I found it interesting that even Romney supported Perry, saying Perry knew he should have go about it differently, but his heart was in the right place. That support again shows how united the GOP is.
I have a lot to say about Congressman Ron Paul. #1, I can't stand him, he is extremely far right. To me, he is irrational and I am unsure how he can get any supporters, are his fans as uneducated as the entire GOP is turning out to be? I'm so confused on how people can support him. He wants to abolish way too much of the government. i.e., Take air conditioning away from our armed forces? are you kidding me? These people are there because our government put them there, they deal with 120+ degree weather, that is an unacceptable to consider taking away their A/C simply because it costs us a lot. That is part of the cost of war that is in a place that we are unaccustomed to living in. unacceptable Ron Paul, unacceptable.
They brought up the topic of Texas school reductions. That may be the case, but Perry pointed out that the graduation rates are up to 84%, which is higher than ever before. If he has raised the graduation rates to the highest level a state has ever seen, how can you condemn him for that? He is doing the best with what he has. To that point, he said: "That is what happens when you share the boarder with Mexico; we have a unique situation in our state." This isn't him trying to push the blame onto the Mexican immigrants. This is pure fact. We do share a boarder with another country that is pouring in immigrants into our state. It does skew our numbers, which then brings us back to the 84% graduation rate and it makes me admire him for that even more.
Perry was also asked about border security. I really agreed when he said: "For the President of the United States to go down to El Paso, Tx and say that our border has been the safest it has ever been, either he has some of the poorest intel. of a President in the history of this country or he was an abject liar to the American people. It is not safe on that boarder." It isn't safe, and the border is only halfway protected. Everyone in Texas knows that the closer you get to the border, the more dangerous it is. I also liked his point that we need to turn off the magnet. i.e., stop giving them jobs, stop giving them aid to school. Those things draws them here. I enjoyed hearing the GOP unite on this subject. They all said that first they needed to get the fence on the border complete and secure and after that then they would be able to effectively talk about immigration reform.
Perry, seems to want to walk a narrow line on the environment. One moment he talks about not believing that human activity is affecting our environment, and in the next he talks about how he lowered emissions in Texas more than any other state. That doesn't make sense. If he doesn't believe the environment is changing because of our interaction, then why is he actively trying to change the emissions in Texas? I would like to see him clear this up in the future. Still on Perry, but another subject; the death penalty. He keeps getting bashed for it, but I don't think it's fair. Perry said if you come into our state and you murder someone, you will be prosectued and given a fair trial. If you have committed a murder you will recieve the full punishment for your actions and be put to death. He keeps getting flak for that, but then isn't that what we did when 9/11 happened? We basically said, if you come into our land and kill our people, then you receieve the ultimate punishment of death. Obviously as a nation we agree with Perry and it's not like he is going to instill a Nation wide death penalty, so really I feel this question isn't debate worthy.
Ok, as much as I have a distaste for Ron Paul, I agree on some small level with him. The moderator asked him how he felt about school provided lunches. He kept saying if it was on a state/local level then he was fine with it, but the government doesn't need to mandate it. I suppose it made me really think about how, as a culture, we truly rely on the government to feed starving kids and meet the needs of the community. We refuse to do it for our neighbors and pass the buck on to the government to do something about it. Our communities have become apathetic and have hidden away in our suburben houses. We need to stop allowing the government to do what the community should be doing. If we actually get out of our houses and know our neighbors then we can meet the needs of those around us and then we wouldn't need government to feed these poor kids who have nothing to eat. All of that said, I'm not sure the American public will do it, so at the end of the day, I don't think what Ron Paul wants will actually work out. I think idealistically it sounds great, but in reality it isn't feasible. Just my thoughts.
Well, that's my soapbox. Now it's time to watch the New Hampshire GOP Debate and put my 2 cents in on that one.
Overall, I really enjoyed the cohesiveness of the republicans. They really refused to be divided all that much. They were determined to beat Obama and find the best candidate to do so and less interested in tearing apart the other candidates. Kudos to them! They took the high road.
Right out of the box the thing that stinks me is a lot of the candidates continue to say "If I get elected, on day one, I'm going to do _____." That killed me. #1 Do they really think the American public is so stupid to think that they can do that all on their own? #2 I sure hope they aren't diluted enough to think that they really can do all that immediately? If they could, then our country would change drastically every time we got a new president. I hope for their sake that it is just political lingo and not a true belief that they can really make such changes on day one without having to go through any processes.
They brought up Social Security a lot. I feel like Perry will end up with the young vote since he is appealing to their concern that it won't last long enough for them to receive it. robbing the program to pay other people. Even on this issue Perry and Romney refused to let the questions divide them. I think in general the mass media are trying to polarize this idea that Social Security is a ponzi scheme, but what they don't understand is that Perry is just trying to get people talking about. Sure there are some key differences, yes the public is aware, yes it isn't optional, so by pure definition it may not be a ponzi scheme, but what Perry and Romney are wanting people to see is that it is not going to work long term without some major changes. I have to agree and I think most of my generation agrees with that concern as well.
On the topic of the HPV vaccine. Bachman was trying to make this issue divisive and she said it isn't right for the government to force people to take a vaccine. However, we have a lot of mandates for childrens vaccines already. Kids can't go to school without certain shots and they must provide a shot record in order to register for school. So that isn't a valid way to oppose Perry's initiative. On another note, by age 50, 80% of women in america have HPV, and it is known to be a cause for cancer. I am with Perry on this. Any other disease or cancer of the body that can be prevented would have been on the vaccine list long ago. It doesn't make sense that this one would be excluded. Something needs to be done, I think Perry was right in what he did. I found it interesting that even Romney supported Perry, saying Perry knew he should have go about it differently, but his heart was in the right place. That support again shows how united the GOP is.
I have a lot to say about Congressman Ron Paul. #1, I can't stand him, he is extremely far right. To me, he is irrational and I am unsure how he can get any supporters, are his fans as uneducated as the entire GOP is turning out to be? I'm so confused on how people can support him. He wants to abolish way too much of the government. i.e., Take air conditioning away from our armed forces? are you kidding me? These people are there because our government put them there, they deal with 120+ degree weather, that is an unacceptable to consider taking away their A/C simply because it costs us a lot. That is part of the cost of war that is in a place that we are unaccustomed to living in. unacceptable Ron Paul, unacceptable.
They brought up the topic of Texas school reductions. That may be the case, but Perry pointed out that the graduation rates are up to 84%, which is higher than ever before. If he has raised the graduation rates to the highest level a state has ever seen, how can you condemn him for that? He is doing the best with what he has. To that point, he said: "That is what happens when you share the boarder with Mexico; we have a unique situation in our state." This isn't him trying to push the blame onto the Mexican immigrants. This is pure fact. We do share a boarder with another country that is pouring in immigrants into our state. It does skew our numbers, which then brings us back to the 84% graduation rate and it makes me admire him for that even more.
Perry was also asked about border security. I really agreed when he said: "For the President of the United States to go down to El Paso, Tx and say that our border has been the safest it has ever been, either he has some of the poorest intel. of a President in the history of this country or he was an abject liar to the American people. It is not safe on that boarder." It isn't safe, and the border is only halfway protected. Everyone in Texas knows that the closer you get to the border, the more dangerous it is. I also liked his point that we need to turn off the magnet. i.e., stop giving them jobs, stop giving them aid to school. Those things draws them here. I enjoyed hearing the GOP unite on this subject. They all said that first they needed to get the fence on the border complete and secure and after that then they would be able to effectively talk about immigration reform.
Perry, seems to want to walk a narrow line on the environment. One moment he talks about not believing that human activity is affecting our environment, and in the next he talks about how he lowered emissions in Texas more than any other state. That doesn't make sense. If he doesn't believe the environment is changing because of our interaction, then why is he actively trying to change the emissions in Texas? I would like to see him clear this up in the future. Still on Perry, but another subject; the death penalty. He keeps getting bashed for it, but I don't think it's fair. Perry said if you come into our state and you murder someone, you will be prosectued and given a fair trial. If you have committed a murder you will recieve the full punishment for your actions and be put to death. He keeps getting flak for that, but then isn't that what we did when 9/11 happened? We basically said, if you come into our land and kill our people, then you receieve the ultimate punishment of death. Obviously as a nation we agree with Perry and it's not like he is going to instill a Nation wide death penalty, so really I feel this question isn't debate worthy.
Ok, as much as I have a distaste for Ron Paul, I agree on some small level with him. The moderator asked him how he felt about school provided lunches. He kept saying if it was on a state/local level then he was fine with it, but the government doesn't need to mandate it. I suppose it made me really think about how, as a culture, we truly rely on the government to feed starving kids and meet the needs of the community. We refuse to do it for our neighbors and pass the buck on to the government to do something about it. Our communities have become apathetic and have hidden away in our suburben houses. We need to stop allowing the government to do what the community should be doing. If we actually get out of our houses and know our neighbors then we can meet the needs of those around us and then we wouldn't need government to feed these poor kids who have nothing to eat. All of that said, I'm not sure the American public will do it, so at the end of the day, I don't think what Ron Paul wants will actually work out. I think idealistically it sounds great, but in reality it isn't feasible. Just my thoughts.
Well, that's my soapbox. Now it's time to watch the New Hampshire GOP Debate and put my 2 cents in on that one.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Does Obama Have a Chance?
It is time again to start pondering if the current President has put himself in a place to be re-elected or if he has effectively lost the re-election battle before it has even started. In an article by The Christian Science Monitor written on September 3rd 2011, they dive into just that question.
It is an interesting question to ponder especially for the Obama administration. The article "Is Election 2012 the GOP's to lose? What Obama could do" really walks that fine line of political bias and offers a great overall picture of the obstacles Obama will be facing. First and foremost, it is a great read simply because it does not feel like the writer has an agenda. It is written in a very clear and unbiased manner as it really opens up the ways Obama could still win the election yet also shows that it will be a hard road and if he is not careful, the GOP could hit a home run without even trying.
In this article it shows how Obama is facing some tough issues that he needs to overcome (or explain away) in order to be re-elected. With a high unemployment rate and the debt crisis, Obama has the obstacle of trying to communicate that all the issues his office has faced were not all his fault. However, the author, Linda Feldman, points out that Obama does not have to convince everyone, but just enough people to win the election. The question is, can he? I highly suggest diving into this article as it really is a well written, easy read, with some great thoughts to ponder as we begin our election season.
It is an interesting question to ponder especially for the Obama administration. The article "Is Election 2012 the GOP's to lose? What Obama could do" really walks that fine line of political bias and offers a great overall picture of the obstacles Obama will be facing. First and foremost, it is a great read simply because it does not feel like the writer has an agenda. It is written in a very clear and unbiased manner as it really opens up the ways Obama could still win the election yet also shows that it will be a hard road and if he is not careful, the GOP could hit a home run without even trying.
In this article it shows how Obama is facing some tough issues that he needs to overcome (or explain away) in order to be re-elected. With a high unemployment rate and the debt crisis, Obama has the obstacle of trying to communicate that all the issues his office has faced were not all his fault. However, the author, Linda Feldman, points out that Obama does not have to convince everyone, but just enough people to win the election. The question is, can he? I highly suggest diving into this article as it really is a well written, easy read, with some great thoughts to ponder as we begin our election season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)