First of all, how much in debt are we already? Somewhere in the ballpark of $10.6 trillion.... You know that that averages over $34,000 per person.... I can't even imagine that much money. Our government just spends and spends. How are we going to pay this off? Can the US as a whole go bankrupt? Can we keep affording to bail everyone out? Or better yet, should we?
Keeping this in mind I honestly have no problems with bail outs, but only if they are thought through. We are in a recession. So, what do people do: they stop spending. Which makes it worse. Which means no one is buying new cars. Especially expensive gas guzzlers. Now we have three big car manufacturers (GM, Ford, and Chrysler) asking for about $34 billion in loans to get the to...wait for it...2010. That's it?!?! So, basically if the market stays the same all that money will be wasted come 2010.
Instead of bailing out all these CEO's and big businesses how about we do something more unorthodox? For instance, why don't we give each family earning under half a million a year $50,000? You can change around the numbers if you want, but keep the principal the same. Give the people who are suffering the money. What does this do? It adds zeros to people's bank accounts which in turn gives them more money to spend. "Spend on what?" you might ask? How about a new car?
The US has the biggest difference in wealth distribution. I am sick and tired of seeing a very small percentage with all the wealth living a lap of luxury while there are so many people without food or shelter. Stop bailing everybody out. Give it to the people who need it most.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Prop 8 2008
Was anyone this far of the west coast paying attention to what was going on in California during this election? Probably not. People like me were too concerned with the "racial" issue of this presidential election. But, this was something that caught my eye.
So, for those of you who don't know: Proposition 8 was set in motion to reneg on their lovely gay marriage passage (or however you want to phrase it). Ever since the loop hole was found for gays to wed people have been in an uproar trying to squash it.
One of my biggest problems about this whole thing is the idea of the separation of chuch and state. Hello? So, since when did the government have a right to butt in on the sanctity of marriage? I honestly think that homosexuals should have a way to obtain the same rights as those of married couples. Okay, so some churches won't marry them and the religions won't honor it...get another church/religion. Can’t always have your wedding cake and eat it too.
Marriage to the government is just a legal document anyway. Heteros get married for bs reasons (like military members marrying for extra government funding – happens all the time). So why can’t people who care about each other, but happen to have the same genitalia, be able to get tax breaks too?
Okay, and this isn’t about “marriage”. It’s about equal rights. Call it whatever you want. I honestly don’t care. “Marriage” has always been a religious thing and I think it should stay that way. I understand that under my religious background the marriage of two people of the same sex doesn’t happen traditionally. But, that doesn’t mean that I can’t fight for people’s rights. I almost look at this the same way I do racism or sexism.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I want me some happiness!
So, for those of you who don't know: Proposition 8 was set in motion to reneg on their lovely gay marriage passage (or however you want to phrase it). Ever since the loop hole was found for gays to wed people have been in an uproar trying to squash it.
One of my biggest problems about this whole thing is the idea of the separation of chuch and state. Hello? So, since when did the government have a right to butt in on the sanctity of marriage? I honestly think that homosexuals should have a way to obtain the same rights as those of married couples. Okay, so some churches won't marry them and the religions won't honor it...get another church/religion. Can’t always have your wedding cake and eat it too.
Marriage to the government is just a legal document anyway. Heteros get married for bs reasons (like military members marrying for extra government funding – happens all the time). So why can’t people who care about each other, but happen to have the same genitalia, be able to get tax breaks too?
Okay, and this isn’t about “marriage”. It’s about equal rights. Call it whatever you want. I honestly don’t care. “Marriage” has always been a religious thing and I think it should stay that way. I understand that under my religious background the marriage of two people of the same sex doesn’t happen traditionally. But, that doesn’t mean that I can’t fight for people’s rights. I almost look at this the same way I do racism or sexism.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I want me some happiness!
Saturday, November 15, 2008
What about the electoral college?
I completely understand where many people's concerns stem regarding the electoral college. I know that for the longest time I was very skeptical myself of this system. At first glance having a select few American's vote being the deciding factor for the presidential elections seems unfair. "Does my vote carry any weight?"
Yes, it does.
What people fail to realize is that the electoral college consists of persons WE have elected in the first place. Therefore, if we choose them shouldn't they have the same political ideals as us? There isn't much stipulation as to who can be nominated except for three things: they cannot be a member of Congress, cannot be a high ranking US official, or has rebelled against the US. That sounds fair to me.
Not only that but most states have a "winner-takes-all" mentality when it comes to the presidential elections. So, normally the candidate that wins the popular vote will also win all the electoral votes of that state. Plus, most states highly discourage electors to vote outside their claimed party. "Faithless Electors" can not only possibly lose their electoral seat, but some states can charge them hefty fines and misdemeanors.
So, even though I may agree that the electoral system is flawed (like most things man made) knowing how it works sets my mind at ease.
I still feel like I have a voice.
Yes, it does.
What people fail to realize is that the electoral college consists of persons WE have elected in the first place. Therefore, if we choose them shouldn't they have the same political ideals as us? There isn't much stipulation as to who can be nominated except for three things: they cannot be a member of Congress, cannot be a high ranking US official, or has rebelled against the US. That sounds fair to me.
Not only that but most states have a "winner-takes-all" mentality when it comes to the presidential elections. So, normally the candidate that wins the popular vote will also win all the electoral votes of that state. Plus, most states highly discourage electors to vote outside their claimed party. "Faithless Electors" can not only possibly lose their electoral seat, but some states can charge them hefty fines and misdemeanors.
So, even though I may agree that the electoral system is flawed (like most things man made) knowing how it works sets my mind at ease.
I still feel like I have a voice.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
May the IRS Burn....
“We might hope to see the finances of the Union as clear and intelligible as a merchant’s books, so that every member of Congress and every man of any mind in the Union should be able to comprehend them, to investigate abuses, and consequently to control them. Our predecessors have endeavored by intricacies of system and shuffling the investigation over from one office to another, to cover everything from detection. I hope that we shall go in the contrary direction, and that, by our honest and judicious reformation, we may be able…to bring things back to that simple and intelligible system on which they should have been organized at first.”—Thomas Jefferson, 1802.
Back when this was quoted the only “taxes” that were taken were from tariff imports (which was the only thing taxable at the time). There were no sales or income tax. In fact, article 5 of the Constitution prohibited any direct tax upon the citizens. Our fathers goal was to keep us away from the tyranny of the past governments by ensuring that we had freedoms of opportunity like never before. Woo hoo freedom. They saw that by limiting the power of the Federal Government to tax was the best way to limit its influence upon our ability to make decisions. This is a major part of the original thinking that we have forgotten. In our haste to make quick decisions, and our greed, we gave away our freedom to the government in the form of higher taxes charged directly against us. In doing so the Federal Government garnered more power than it was ever intended to have. This in turn has made the government able to use that power to make a large segment of the population dependant upon it. We lost our freedom because we were ignorant to the teachings of our own Fathers. It has been a subtle, gradual transition, and many will say that it is too late to change. I can only hope that we still have a chance to fix it. I say that we need a way to make the population aware of its own precarious situation. We need to react now, to quickly alter the course of our country by making people less dependant on the government for their problems. We need to restore our independence before it is too late, and the majority seeks the government as they would a Magic 8 Ball for answers. It starts with changing our policy on taxation, and that is why the Income tax has got to go. I fear that with our new president in office we will continue on a path away from democracy and towards socialism. The more responsibilities our government signs up for the more we will see freedom slip away. Everything has a price.
Back when this was quoted the only “taxes” that were taken were from tariff imports (which was the only thing taxable at the time). There were no sales or income tax. In fact, article 5 of the Constitution prohibited any direct tax upon the citizens. Our fathers goal was to keep us away from the tyranny of the past governments by ensuring that we had freedoms of opportunity like never before. Woo hoo freedom. They saw that by limiting the power of the Federal Government to tax was the best way to limit its influence upon our ability to make decisions. This is a major part of the original thinking that we have forgotten. In our haste to make quick decisions, and our greed, we gave away our freedom to the government in the form of higher taxes charged directly against us. In doing so the Federal Government garnered more power than it was ever intended to have. This in turn has made the government able to use that power to make a large segment of the population dependant upon it. We lost our freedom because we were ignorant to the teachings of our own Fathers. It has been a subtle, gradual transition, and many will say that it is too late to change. I can only hope that we still have a chance to fix it. I say that we need a way to make the population aware of its own precarious situation. We need to react now, to quickly alter the course of our country by making people less dependant on the government for their problems. We need to restore our independence before it is too late, and the majority seeks the government as they would a Magic 8 Ball for answers. It starts with changing our policy on taxation, and that is why the Income tax has got to go. I fear that with our new president in office we will continue on a path away from democracy and towards socialism. The more responsibilities our government signs up for the more we will see freedom slip away. Everything has a price.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Michigan's Proposal 2
This November, on the Michigan ballot, is Proposal 2. “What exactly is Proposal 2?” you might ask…. Well it’s the one allowing embryonic stem cell research. Now, don’t go getting your panties in a twist just yet. Embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with babies or even fetuses. So do not start running around saying that I’m all about killing babies. Not true. The research would take early-stage embryos (two weeks old or less) and study their stem cells.
I would assume that my biggest concern would also be in line with a lot of other people’s: where would they get the embryos? Well, first of all they would be donated. Women who have chosen to go to fertility clinics can opt to donate their embryos for this research which otherwise would have just been destroyed. So, the scientists would be studying something originally intended to be thrown away. In passing this proposal the scientists may be able to learn how to fix damaged/diseased cells of all kinds. Apparently, at such an early stage the stem cells are capable of great modification. This would also bring in around 8,000 jobs to Michigan (which has a very high unemployment rate).
The author of this article (Stem Cell Lies)is pleading everyone to pay attention to something that could potentially save many many lives. Even though the author is not a scientist he seems to have done his research. He even sat down with the President of a political group who highly opposes the proposal to find out why.
I would assume that my biggest concern would also be in line with a lot of other people’s: where would they get the embryos? Well, first of all they would be donated. Women who have chosen to go to fertility clinics can opt to donate their embryos for this research which otherwise would have just been destroyed. So, the scientists would be studying something originally intended to be thrown away. In passing this proposal the scientists may be able to learn how to fix damaged/diseased cells of all kinds. Apparently, at such an early stage the stem cells are capable of great modification. This would also bring in around 8,000 jobs to Michigan (which has a very high unemployment rate).
The author of this article (Stem Cell Lies)is pleading everyone to pay attention to something that could potentially save many many lives. Even though the author is not a scientist he seems to have done his research. He even sat down with the President of a political group who highly opposes the proposal to find out why.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
National Health Care?
With the passing of the bailout I assumed that most people would be in an uproar (not surprisingly) and go that direction for this assignment. So, naturally I wanted to go down a different path.
Why Can't We Have Health Care?
The author makes a valid stance on her opinion that the U.S. needs to catch up with the rest of the world in terms of health care. I feel safe in not questioning her credibility since this is an easily generalized and researched topic (though I know she’s just a woman with a point of view). Her intended audience is everyone old enough to worry about health insurance.
I actually had a discussion with a couple friends of mine over this same subject just the other night. On the surface I would have to agree with the author (as was my argument the other evening). The population of the U.S. has a vast number of uninsured individuals and becomes increasingly more unaffordable. Plus, with “free” health care individuals would be more likely to take care of medical problems sooner rather than later (which could ensure prompt diagnoses and could potentially avoid costly procedures).
But, as my friends and I continued our conversation they opened my eyes to some of the harsh realities of making this work. Firstly, our health is the most important thing to each of us. Period. I personally would not want a government organization setting up and running something so complex when I look around and see how inefficiently our government agencies run. Especially with this bailout. Secondly, if I have something severely wrong with me I’m going to want to be able to get the best doctors I can afford to fix it. We have doctors specializing in their fields coming here from all over the world because in America their talents are aptly rewarded. What happens when we can’t dangle a carrot in front of their noses?
Also, nothing comes free. How do you think this national health care plan will be funded? The government might look like its picking up the tab, but in reality (just like with everything else) the tax payers are the ones with their credit cards on the table. And, how is it fair that healthy individuals should have to pay for health care for chain smokers and the morbidly obese? Plus, with the American lifestyle the way it is it will be more costly to the society to keep up with the medical problems. Therefore, higher taxes might be placed on cigarettes or alcohol and restrictions might be put in place concerning fast food etc.
I do feel that health insurance costs are getting out of hand. And I know that with the bill in the bailout concerning mental illnesses this will only get worse. Something must be done. I just don’t feel that a national health care system is the answer. Unfortunately, I don’t have a suggestion since I don’t have the qualifications and information to make one.
Why Can't We Have Health Care?
The author makes a valid stance on her opinion that the U.S. needs to catch up with the rest of the world in terms of health care. I feel safe in not questioning her credibility since this is an easily generalized and researched topic (though I know she’s just a woman with a point of view). Her intended audience is everyone old enough to worry about health insurance.
I actually had a discussion with a couple friends of mine over this same subject just the other night. On the surface I would have to agree with the author (as was my argument the other evening). The population of the U.S. has a vast number of uninsured individuals and becomes increasingly more unaffordable. Plus, with “free” health care individuals would be more likely to take care of medical problems sooner rather than later (which could ensure prompt diagnoses and could potentially avoid costly procedures).
But, as my friends and I continued our conversation they opened my eyes to some of the harsh realities of making this work. Firstly, our health is the most important thing to each of us. Period. I personally would not want a government organization setting up and running something so complex when I look around and see how inefficiently our government agencies run. Especially with this bailout. Secondly, if I have something severely wrong with me I’m going to want to be able to get the best doctors I can afford to fix it. We have doctors specializing in their fields coming here from all over the world because in America their talents are aptly rewarded. What happens when we can’t dangle a carrot in front of their noses?
Also, nothing comes free. How do you think this national health care plan will be funded? The government might look like its picking up the tab, but in reality (just like with everything else) the tax payers are the ones with their credit cards on the table. And, how is it fair that healthy individuals should have to pay for health care for chain smokers and the morbidly obese? Plus, with the American lifestyle the way it is it will be more costly to the society to keep up with the medical problems. Therefore, higher taxes might be placed on cigarettes or alcohol and restrictions might be put in place concerning fast food etc.
I do feel that health insurance costs are getting out of hand. And I know that with the bill in the bailout concerning mental illnesses this will only get worse. Something must be done. I just don’t feel that a national health care system is the answer. Unfortunately, I don’t have a suggestion since I don’t have the qualifications and information to make one.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Panel Proposes Broad Changes in Federal Financial Aid for College
A panel of education experts/researchers got together and decided that the current federal college aid system needed some serious overhauling. Their first suggestion? Doing away with FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) and getting all the required information from the Internal Revenue Service instead. Their main goal is helping needy students get through college. In their other suggestions (such as basing eligibility for Pell Grants on adjusted gross income and family size and rethinking loan payment plans and loan interest rates) they stress the importance of making college more affordable.
To me the most interesting proposal was the federal government establishing college savings accounts for low-income children. They are worried that because college isn’t pushed in low-income families that students will be discouraged to go to college based on the cost. The plan proposed that the program begins at 12 and the government deposits money each year (earning interest) until they turned 18 and the money could only be used for college expenses.
I honestly believe that the federal financial aid system needs some serious rethinking. I have witnessed too many times students in need not getting adequate aid to continue their college education. This is something that is obviously important to each one of us (and possibly in the future our children). I hope that this report will get enough support to be adopted…or if not this particular one something similar comes along. Education has become so important and I don’t understand why helping students get there isn’t getting the attention it’s deserved.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/education/19college.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin
To me the most interesting proposal was the federal government establishing college savings accounts for low-income children. They are worried that because college isn’t pushed in low-income families that students will be discouraged to go to college based on the cost. The plan proposed that the program begins at 12 and the government deposits money each year (earning interest) until they turned 18 and the money could only be used for college expenses.
I honestly believe that the federal financial aid system needs some serious rethinking. I have witnessed too many times students in need not getting adequate aid to continue their college education. This is something that is obviously important to each one of us (and possibly in the future our children). I hope that this report will get enough support to be adopted…or if not this particular one something similar comes along. Education has become so important and I don’t understand why helping students get there isn’t getting the attention it’s deserved.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/education/19college.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
