In response to Democracy:The Political Skinny's "Bush Pleads For Money"
$200 Billion dollars might be outrageous to a little more than 50 out of 100 degrees, but it is ridiculous to say that we are not keeping our military vehicles and the equipment our troops use safe. Also, if you even research the news and follow up on these proposals, on December 12th, The House passed a $696 billion defense bill which will give $189 billion (roughly Bush's $200) to the war in Iraq an Afghanistan, which Bush is most definitely going to sign.
In this article, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22224958/, it states that the legislation includes a pay raise of 3.5 percent to our troops:
The legislation includes a 3.5 percent pay raise authorized for uniformed service personnel and a guarantee that combat veterans receive swift health evaluations. It also would block fee increases proposed as part of the military’s Tricare health care system.
So, there will be aide for our veterans like you stated wouldn't be in this big hunk of money. Also, a large portion of this is going to aide our Homeland Security and other troops stationed in other countries around the world. So, it is very absurd to say deny this money which is really going to help our troops that (just face it, are not coming out anytime soon) are in the Middle East.
As far as helping our Health care System that was destroyed by Bill Clinton, it is just another problem that many people, that don't mind throwing their money into other peoples pockets, have blown way out of proportion. Our troops are getting great health care and they have free medical for life, as do their families.If you think that we need to try and pay for every bodies health care, you are out of your mind thinking that a $200 billion Iraq fund is big, because everybody in this country would be ravaging up huge medical bills to solve every problem they have, and the money that would be needed would be well over $200 billion a year, and that's something no cigarette tax can handle, so don't even think about it. The only reason smaller countries can handle a universal health care system is just that, they are smaller countries. multiply our 300 million citizens by the average amount a citizen spends on health care a year. This was $924 billion in 1996 according to BNET Research Center and imagine what it is today. How would we ever be able to pay for that?
Also, as far as the starving children in this country, that is a few and far between. No child is "starving", children in third world countries starve, and we have what they call a welfare system that issues food stamps and cards to people for groceries that have children they cannot support. That is where about a fifth of your paycheck goes. So yes, these children are being fed! You are feeding them. This is the result of uneducated people who have created this problem by not trying to make their lives better, and get knocked up and having children their uneducated person cannot support. Sorry but we are a huge nation that cannot afford to be sheltering and feeding every person that decides to be lazy and do nothing with their life. Everyone has a choice to be better in life, and my father left and got his Master's on his own, so don't say it's not their fault cause it very well is.
Lastly, New Orleans... No one in their right mind, that was not trying to get a vote, would say we need to put more money into rebuilding New Orleans. It is in between two bodies of water that are over a hundred feet above the city itself. The only reason there is a city there in the first place is that no one during it's establishment have the knowledge, understanding, or technology to realize that it is smack in the middle of two bodies of water, and one that frequents every year with substantial hurricanes. It is not the governments fault that these people choose to stay there and "rebuild" an already destroyed city, that have a pretty big chance of getting washed away again. It would be money that will literally be washed away in a matter of another hurricane in the Gulf Of Mexico. I don't think that the Government needs to focus on defying Mother Nature because it's an endless battle.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
"Unannounced Visits" or Fourth Amendment Violation?
Source: Washington Post
"Court Won't Review San Diego Home Hunts"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/26/AR2007112600765.html
Earlier this week the Supreme Court allowed California to uphold a court decision to let law enforcement officials to bombard into people's homes without a search warrant. They reportedly can do anything that they can do with a search warrant. This is targetted largely at low income/welfare families that are surprised by unannounced visits by officials as a part of the welfare program to prevent fraud.
So, the Fourth Amendment requires a search warrant and some sort of suspicion of breaking the law. So why did the Supreme Court not look at this and try to end the program?
I think that it is ridiculous that the Supreme Court would let this happen. This not only effects the people on welfare but it leaves a reason for law enforcement to do it in many other houses of people that may not even fall under this category. What is next? We already have people listening to phone conversations and now we are moving towards more breaches in our Fourth Amendment rights. Hopefully, people will realize what wrong doing this is and speak out.
"Court Won't Review San Diego Home Hunts"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/26/AR2007112600765.html
Earlier this week the Supreme Court allowed California to uphold a court decision to let law enforcement officials to bombard into people's homes without a search warrant. They reportedly can do anything that they can do with a search warrant. This is targetted largely at low income/welfare families that are surprised by unannounced visits by officials as a part of the welfare program to prevent fraud.
So, the Fourth Amendment requires a search warrant and some sort of suspicion of breaking the law. So why did the Supreme Court not look at this and try to end the program?
I think that it is ridiculous that the Supreme Court would let this happen. This not only effects the people on welfare but it leaves a reason for law enforcement to do it in many other houses of people that may not even fall under this category. What is next? We already have people listening to phone conversations and now we are moving towards more breaches in our Fourth Amendment rights. Hopefully, people will realize what wrong doing this is and speak out.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Response to "A Human Problem"
In response to Ich Bein Berliner's "A Human Problem"
I don't think Ann Coulter was just trying to say and use what the democrats' ideas as "division and miscommunications", but rather in regards to the growing outcry of many American liberals that the War in Iraq is a failure and we should just withdrawal. I apologize that the world has generalizations that a lot of people don't like it, but it's hard to not generalize liberals (among other variations of people) by saying, "Liberals said....", because there are many people in this world and it would be hard to single them all out when they share similar views.
Back to the point that Ann Coulter was trying to make in her article “From the halls of Malibu to the shores of Kennedy”. Like I mentioned “many” liberals in the nation do nothing but bash and bang on the Administration for the war in Iraq, and it is true that more democrats voted for the war, then against it. So why? Why are people after Sept. 11th going to agree to the war, then turn around and blame it on the U.S. President for the invasion after they had their chance to go against it? Also, do not lie to yourself, weren’t you pretty happy after seeing what they did that we were going to go try and destroy Al-Qaeda?
The war is not just “…people killing people over pieces of the ground…”; it is what the vast majority of the people at the time wanted. We wanted justice and a world without terrorism, and by us striving to make it a reality, we are also striving to make the lives of other people around the world lives without having to “…fear their governments,” as you say. So I think that to say that the war we are currently in is nothing more than a bunch of people clubbing each other is just as much disrespect to the military, as well as the people that many have forgotten that died painful deaths from the terrorists many liberals claim are beating us today.
The other claim made is that the Bush Administration had practically overlooked other terrorist nations and jumped into Iraq. This is factually inaccurate because there have been troops in Syria and Iran and for a few years after the attack, they were providing intelligence to the U.S. about Al-Qaeda. The United States does have a large military but when dictators like Suddam Hussein run countries and contribute to terrorism we need to go after them, especially if terrorism is what we are fighting. Like Ann Coulter said, we did catch Suddam contrary to what democrats said. This is just stating the obvious, not dividing people, but summing up the ones that divide the country and the military.
If anything is to be argued about, and if a positive outlook was your topic, I think you could have turned it around to something along the lines of “We have made a lot of progress in the Iraq War, Mark Bowden predicted a casualty rate of 60,000 to 100,000 of U.S. troops in Iraq, and we have less then 5% of that rate as of today, and that we have not turned our backs on the Kurds like predicted.” I think there is something more positive that can be pulled out of Ann’s “…aggressive style argument.”
I don't think Ann Coulter was just trying to say and use what the democrats' ideas as "division and miscommunications", but rather in regards to the growing outcry of many American liberals that the War in Iraq is a failure and we should just withdrawal. I apologize that the world has generalizations that a lot of people don't like it, but it's hard to not generalize liberals (among other variations of people) by saying, "Liberals said....", because there are many people in this world and it would be hard to single them all out when they share similar views.
Back to the point that Ann Coulter was trying to make in her article “From the halls of Malibu to the shores of Kennedy”. Like I mentioned “many” liberals in the nation do nothing but bash and bang on the Administration for the war in Iraq, and it is true that more democrats voted for the war, then against it. So why? Why are people after Sept. 11th going to agree to the war, then turn around and blame it on the U.S. President for the invasion after they had their chance to go against it? Also, do not lie to yourself, weren’t you pretty happy after seeing what they did that we were going to go try and destroy Al-Qaeda?
The war is not just “…people killing people over pieces of the ground…”; it is what the vast majority of the people at the time wanted. We wanted justice and a world without terrorism, and by us striving to make it a reality, we are also striving to make the lives of other people around the world lives without having to “…fear their governments,” as you say. So I think that to say that the war we are currently in is nothing more than a bunch of people clubbing each other is just as much disrespect to the military, as well as the people that many have forgotten that died painful deaths from the terrorists many liberals claim are beating us today.
The other claim made is that the Bush Administration had practically overlooked other terrorist nations and jumped into Iraq. This is factually inaccurate because there have been troops in Syria and Iran and for a few years after the attack, they were providing intelligence to the U.S. about Al-Qaeda. The United States does have a large military but when dictators like Suddam Hussein run countries and contribute to terrorism we need to go after them, especially if terrorism is what we are fighting. Like Ann Coulter said, we did catch Suddam contrary to what democrats said. This is just stating the obvious, not dividing people, but summing up the ones that divide the country and the military.
If anything is to be argued about, and if a positive outlook was your topic, I think you could have turned it around to something along the lines of “We have made a lot of progress in the Iraq War, Mark Bowden predicted a casualty rate of 60,000 to 100,000 of U.S. troops in Iraq, and we have less then 5% of that rate as of today, and that we have not turned our backs on the Kurds like predicted.” I think there is something more positive that can be pulled out of Ann’s “…aggressive style argument.”
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Crime in "Killadelphia"
Article Source:
MSNBC - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18278063/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21418521/
Image Source: MSNBC Matt Rourke / AP
The current crime situation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is mind-boggling. These days, it’s not uncommon in to have a friend that’s busy on the weekend because they have a funeral to attend. The city has an average of one homicide a day. The cities violence and homicide rate has been increasing over the past 10 years and is 17 percent higher then this time last year alone. Homicide in Philly is 3 times that of other cities in the U.S.
MSNBC - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18278063/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21418521/
Image Source: MSNBC Matt Rourke / AP
The current crime situation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is mind-boggling. These days, it’s not uncommon in to have a friend that’s busy on the weekend because they have a funeral to attend. The city has an average of one homicide a day. The cities violence and homicide rate has been increasing over the past 10 years and is 17 percent higher then this time last year alone. Homicide in Philly is 3 times that of other cities in the U.S.
Sunday October 22nd, the city called for citizens to rally against the cities security downfall and
begin patrolling the streets unarmed. The only thing is, how is this going to help stop ruthless criminals who don’t even mind shooting or killing an officer or two in a Dunkin’ Donuts robbery that happened today (November 1st). It is apparent that something needs to be down to deter crime and criminals but putting more citizens in harms way to make up for the lack of police and re-enforcement progress is outrageous.
Something else needs to be done about the downfall of “Killadelphia”. Shouldn’t the government be stepping in when you have people shooting at children on their way to work for riding their bikes in the street? Police need to step up to the plate and take care of their city and it’s people when citizens pay taxes and rely on them to do their job. Not ask citizens to do it for them. They need to crack down on gun control, gangs, truancy, and behavior of its people.
The majority of the population of the city is low-income and below education standards. This is probably a major contributor to the crime epidemic, and the police are not the only to blame, but enforcement of gun control and law is their responsibility. Yes, there has been a first stage of progress with the city seeking to hire dozens of truancy officer to keep children in school and out of criminal activity, but Mayor John Street needs to address the root cause as well.
Unemployment, education, and bad economy are major contributors as well. The Mayor Street has done little to reassess his current crime plans. Police employment is low in the city and so is the push to hire more officers. This is something that should not be a problem in a country that has enough power to help in violence in other countries. It’s time the people start worrying about who is in office doing something, rather then who is in office saying they will do something. Mayor Street, city, and state officials need to do something.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Can't Override Bush for SCHIP
The bill that was proposed to fill the gap in the U.S. health care system, reaching out to middle class families, failed to make an override of President Bush's veto on Thursday. The bill asked for $35 million over the next five years to fill this gap and provide people that live above poverty level and below high income status. This $35 million dollar cost was the part that had Bush sold on a veto. Supposedly, this huge amount of money was supposed to be funded by a 61-cent increase in tobacco tax, but wait.
The House of Representatives lost the two-thirds majority mark (273 to 156) by 13 votes, and this was probably for the good. The amount of money that would be piled onto the Iraq bill is not very logical at this time. Maybe there should be some sort of expansion of the health care system, but we don't need another fall-out like the Social Security program.
Clearly, 61-cents is not a going to be enough over five years to cover a $35 billion dollar budget, especially if the purchase of tobacco will drop as proven in the past. Basically we would be making the same on tobacco tax as before, because less people will be using it after the tax increase. Then, the government will not have enough money to cover this and force them to pull money from other programs or raise taxes, in other words, we would rob Peter to pay Paul.
Lastly, I would recommend to cut back more on social programs that are not providing what they should, and give smaller businesses and companies tax breaks to cover more of these health expenses. Maybe even make a deductible on middle income families to be able to have the resources for their child’s health care. This would accomplish what they are seeking to do as middle class families making as much as $83,000 should be able to manage their money enough to participate in employee benefit programs or purchase supplemental insurance for their children which is done by a lot of America already. We the people should stop and look at what we spend when we make up to $83,300 and be able to support our children.
Source:
CNN
URL - http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/18/schip/index.html
(CNN's Deirdre Walsh and Jessica Yellin contributed to the report at the source.)
The House of Representatives lost the two-thirds majority mark (273 to 156) by 13 votes, and this was probably for the good. The amount of money that would be piled onto the Iraq bill is not very logical at this time. Maybe there should be some sort of expansion of the health care system, but we don't need another fall-out like the Social Security program.
Clearly, 61-cents is not a going to be enough over five years to cover a $35 billion dollar budget, especially if the purchase of tobacco will drop as proven in the past. Basically we would be making the same on tobacco tax as before, because less people will be using it after the tax increase. Then, the government will not have enough money to cover this and force them to pull money from other programs or raise taxes, in other words, we would rob Peter to pay Paul.
Lastly, I would recommend to cut back more on social programs that are not providing what they should, and give smaller businesses and companies tax breaks to cover more of these health expenses. Maybe even make a deductible on middle income families to be able to have the resources for their child’s health care. This would accomplish what they are seeking to do as middle class families making as much as $83,000 should be able to manage their money enough to participate in employee benefit programs or purchase supplemental insurance for their children which is done by a lot of America already. We the people should stop and look at what we spend when we make up to $83,300 and be able to support our children.
Source:
CNN
URL - http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/18/schip/index.html
(CNN's Deirdre Walsh and Jessica Yellin contributed to the report at the source.)
Thursday, October 4, 2007
N. Korea's Six Nation Agreement
Within the next couple of weeks this month, N. Korean will begin showing progress in disabling nuclear facilities that were first discovered by the U.S. in 2002. This is a six nation agreement that shows one small, but great step to shorting the list of terror sponsoring nations. This agreement will, hopefully, disclose N. Korea’s amount plutonium and allow nuclear scientists from the United States, China, and Russia to assess the progress and help the countries understand more of what went on, and what’s going on the end this nuclear program.
The standard for how irreversible the dismantlement would be, has gone from irreversible to allowing N. Korea to be able to re-engage the facilities in about a year. So, even though they are “ending” the nuclear program, the very sporadic N. Korean government could easily start up hell again.
What played a part in motivating the N. Korean Government to end it’s program was that it would allow an economical advantage to the government that is probably much needed in a place were 2 cars on a single street is traffic. Though, you have to be grateful that President Bush is willing to sit down and negotiate with such an extreme nation and leader to talk about global affairs. It seems that our president is taking the civil way of approaching issues and I think it will pay off. Especially when you have such a powerful country ending such a program, it displaces a sense of action that other countries, hopefully Iran in the Middle East, will pick up on as something positive to everyone.
Already north and south leaders of Korea have met and negotiated opening a joint are for the countries to use for fishing and trade in the Yellow Sea, which has been disputed waters between the two countries. This is just one of many steps from N. Korea that are leading to possible great outcomes, and South Korean officials are already publicly acknowledging them. Also, if the agreement continues to be carried out as expected, the exit from North Korea from the terror list would open up trade in the United States.
One other outcome that needs to be addressed is that between Japan and N. Korea. The Japanese are still questioning abductions that were committed by the North Korean government but there has been no sign of an discussion or date set for any sort of Q & A between these countries.
Overall, this is a great agreement, criticize it or not, at the least of all our problems in global terror, we can now say that we are negotiating and carrying out a crack down on nuclear and terror sponsoring nations. Also, I think our president is doing a great job in doing so in the middle of his meetings, mostly consumed of Iraqi policy and the pleasing of never ending hate toward his every step.
Article Sources used for information:
The Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100202223.html?sid=ST2007100201132
The New York Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/washington/03diplo.html
The standard for how irreversible the dismantlement would be, has gone from irreversible to allowing N. Korea to be able to re-engage the facilities in about a year. So, even though they are “ending” the nuclear program, the very sporadic N. Korean government could easily start up hell again.
What played a part in motivating the N. Korean Government to end it’s program was that it would allow an economical advantage to the government that is probably much needed in a place were 2 cars on a single street is traffic. Though, you have to be grateful that President Bush is willing to sit down and negotiate with such an extreme nation and leader to talk about global affairs. It seems that our president is taking the civil way of approaching issues and I think it will pay off. Especially when you have such a powerful country ending such a program, it displaces a sense of action that other countries, hopefully Iran in the Middle East, will pick up on as something positive to everyone.
Already north and south leaders of Korea have met and negotiated opening a joint are for the countries to use for fishing and trade in the Yellow Sea, which has been disputed waters between the two countries. This is just one of many steps from N. Korea that are leading to possible great outcomes, and South Korean officials are already publicly acknowledging them. Also, if the agreement continues to be carried out as expected, the exit from North Korea from the terror list would open up trade in the United States.
One other outcome that needs to be addressed is that between Japan and N. Korea. The Japanese are still questioning abductions that were committed by the North Korean government but there has been no sign of an discussion or date set for any sort of Q & A between these countries.
Overall, this is a great agreement, criticize it or not, at the least of all our problems in global terror, we can now say that we are negotiating and carrying out a crack down on nuclear and terror sponsoring nations. Also, I think our president is doing a great job in doing so in the middle of his meetings, mostly consumed of Iraqi policy and the pleasing of never ending hate toward his every step.
Article Sources used for information:
The Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100202223.html?sid=ST2007100201132
The New York Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/washington/03diplo.html
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Cutting Troops In Iraq
The day of the State of the Union address on the 9/11 6 year anniversary, President Bush, for the first time, spoke in front of a Congress ruled by democrats. Bush announced the withdrawal of the troop surge which would bring home 5,700 troops by the end of the year and 5 more brigades by summer of 2008, while urging the democratic party to give him a chance at victory in Iraq.
The day after President Bush's address, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates said that it may be possible to reduce the number of troops to 100,000 by the end of 2008. In March, Gates hopes that Gen. Patraeus would agree to continue withdrawing troops throughout 2008.
Would this be realistic?
In no way is 100,000 troops by 2009 the plan of the current administration, as reported by Robert Gates, although Gates stated, "That would be the math." This is if the current Iraqi Leadership begins to show extensive progress in taking full control, and a more aggressive crack down on violence and terrorism. Otherwise their current demonstration of slow progress will most likely be a cause for a substantial amount of U.S. troops in Iraq for a long while; afterall, you cannot just flag and identify an active minefield, as this type of threat will never go away until it is disarmed from its potentially deadly path of destruction and motives by a reliable force, not one that will fall to its knees.
Click the link below to read the article yourself, it would be extremely surprising if troop levels can be cut from 160,000 to 100,000 by 2009.
Source: Fox News
URL http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296868,00.html
The day after President Bush's address, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates said that it may be possible to reduce the number of troops to 100,000 by the end of 2008. In March, Gates hopes that Gen. Patraeus would agree to continue withdrawing troops throughout 2008.
Would this be realistic?
In no way is 100,000 troops by 2009 the plan of the current administration, as reported by Robert Gates, although Gates stated, "That would be the math." This is if the current Iraqi Leadership begins to show extensive progress in taking full control, and a more aggressive crack down on violence and terrorism. Otherwise their current demonstration of slow progress will most likely be a cause for a substantial amount of U.S. troops in Iraq for a long while; afterall, you cannot just flag and identify an active minefield, as this type of threat will never go away until it is disarmed from its potentially deadly path of destruction and motives by a reliable force, not one that will fall to its knees.
Click the link below to read the article yourself, it would be extremely surprising if troop levels can be cut from 160,000 to 100,000 by 2009.
Source: Fox News
URL http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296868,00.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
