Stage 8 (comment on 50 stars blog-can we trust Obama)

I don’t think that trust is the issue. I think that the policies were. Obama’s healthcare plan might have been less expensive but limits the types of care and medications that will be received. I think healthcare is one area that should not receive as harsh of cuts as other areas. Also the tax credits could only buy healthcare and nothing else.

The area that Obama really messed up on is the energy crisis. His plan would not work as well. He said let’s use geothermic as one thing. We don’t have the means of running the country on geothermic energy. He also said biodiesel as a way. Biodiesel is basically the cooking oil we use. How much is it for a pint…3 to 4 bucks? How much is a gallon of gas these days? There would not be enough means to run cars for the entire country on biodiesel and still be cheaper than gas.

McCain wanted to use nuclear energy. I do not understand why people are afraid of nuclear energy. It is one of the cleanest sources of energy, it’s reusable and efficient. Chernobyl was a bad incident yes, but that is not the norm for nuclear power. As long as you follow the regulations that are set up, nuclear power is safe. And above all it is cheaper than geothermic and biodiesel in this country.

That is where you need the cuts, not healthcare. Obama’s healthcare plan will lead to everyone getting the same healthcare plan which is not good. Not everyone has the same needs for healthcare in this country. We need to cut spending where it won’t affect people in negative ways as much as possible. I don’t agree with Obama’s plan, but in the end we will see what happens during his presidency.

stage 7 (gay marriage)

On Election Day all 30 states which voted on the gay marriage ban supported the ban. Even though Obama is a progressive liberal, which in general support gay rights, the vast majority of his supporters voted for the ban to pass. I think this is good. I personally do not agree with gay marriage. Children who are raised by gay parents face hardships that children with strait parents don’t. Some include being ridiculed and mistreated by others, which potentially can have long term effects, also children may either lack a father figure or mother figure depending on if it is two men or women that are married. Children need both a maternal and paternal influence to be healthy. I have no problem with gay people living together and being together, but when marriage and children become involved then I have a problem. One other claim that I cannot stand is that gay people are the way they are because of genetics. There are no genes that determine one’s orientation. Every person that I have met that is gay has been able to explain to me why they are gay. Not one of them said they were born that way or that they didn’t know why. In fact, every one of them had a story and very profound reasons why. I don’t necessarily agree with the choices they have made, but I do not hate them for it. Being gay is a choice people make for whatever reason and all choices have consequences. One consequence in my opinion should be that gay people cannot be married, for the reasons I have stated above.

editorial comment (stage6)

I have to disagree about the Electoral College being changed or “updated”. I also disagree that the constitution needs to be rewritten to reflect modern times. The Electoral College was made a long time ago, but why change something that works. Also it would be unrealistic to get rid of the Electoral College because the smaller states, which the system helps out, would not want to change. So why spend a lot of time trying to convince many small states to change when we have a system that works. The Constitution was written for the purpose to be interpreted, also we have a system of being able to change or make amendments. Why don’t we just use the system that is already there to make changes instead of rewriting the whole document where there is potential harm. If we started to rewrite the Constitution what would stop special interest groups trying to put in stuff promoting their group over other people. I am not opposed to making any changes at all; I just feel that the Constitution should be left alone unless it is being amended, not rewritten.

healthcare (stage5)

When I was watching the third presidential debate I paid close attention to the discussion of issues. One issue that sparked my interest in particular was healthcare. Obama’s plan is to have people keep their employer’s healthcare and for those who don’t have healthcare, have them be able to have the same federal healthcare that government employees have. On the other hand McCain’s plan is to give everyone a 5,000 dollar tax credit for people to put towards the healthcare plan of their choice. At first both sounded decent to me until I really thought about Obama’s healthcare plan. Parts I agree with and others I don’t.
I agree that it is a good idea to get healthcare to those who don’t have it. My main problem is that his plan gives way too much control over healthcare to the government. The candidates both are trying to cut spending. If Obama is elected and his healthcare plan goes into effect, problems could come very quickly and strike the ability for federal healthcare to provide necessary and adequate services because of spending cuts. In theory his plan would allow the government to say what prescription medications you can take and what ones you can’t, which is a major problem for those who have regular prescriptions and take daily medications. Limiting the choice in certain types of medications like psychiatric, diabetic, and medications for other chronic illnesses is devastating to the people who use them because not all medications work the same way for everyone.
McCain’s plan would still allow people to get healthcare, but he still will give people the choice of what healthcare they want. With the 5,000 dollar tax credits that everyone will receive, people can apply the credits to whatever plan they see fit. There is not one healthcare provider that can suit the needs of every American, and if there was there would be no competition among providers which allows variety in coverage and price. McCain’s plan makes a lot more sense to me and I think for the present and future would prove to be effective and efficient.

Stage 4

The article I have chosen is “U.S. Has a History of Intervention” found on the Drudge Report. The article is relating examples of when we have used nationalization in certain industries to fit our needs at the time. The intended audience is people who are afraid of the government stepping in and using nationalization in times of crisis. I believe the author is very credible because he uses strong historical examples and evidence that cannot really be argued against. I most definitely agree with the author view on the issue and his claims. Our government is talking about nationalizing of banks to help our economic crisis. In other cases in the past this technique has worked well for example, in 1917 the government seized the railroads to make sure supply, troops, and armaments moved smoothly and efficiently in the countries best interest of national defense in WWI. Also in WWII the government seized many companies including railroads, coal mines, and for a short time Montgomery Ward department store chain. In 1984 the government stepped in and took 80 percent of stake in Continental Illinois National Bank. At the time they were failing due to bad oil patch loans in Oklahoma and Texas. In the 1930’s the Reconstruction Finance Corporation gave loans to distressed banks and bought stock in over 6,000 banks, at a total cost of about 3 billion dollars. When the economy stabilized these stocks were sold. Experts say the only problem was that the government moved too slowly. We are facing a huge financial crisis and we need to do something fast. The times the government stepped in and did something we turned out ok.

editorial review

The editorial I have chosen is entitled “Trust Me” in The New York Times. I think the intended audience of this article is either strong left-winged individuals or people frustrated with the Bush administration or the financial crisis. The authors claim is that Bush’s proposal to recover from the financial plunge is totally out of the question. He uses both presidential candidates’ statements about Bush’s proposal which both highly disagree with the proposal. The author feels that nearly everyone agrees that the plan is too broad, vague, and unregulated. One part of the proposal would give the Treasury Secretary full power to buy stocks from anywhere, any price, for any reason he thinks is necessary with out it being questioned by neither courts nor administrative agencies. Basically saying that this man could do whatever he wants with the money and no one can question him. The author also brings up the point that with this proposal we would be giving a lot of power to the Bush administration. There is also a sense or extreme urgency with the proposal. He gave an example of this being an issue with things like wiretapping after 9/11. I think the article is credible. The author has some arguments that I think cannot be disputed such as the urgency and amount of power to one person. I also think the evidence is sufficient to prove the author’s claim. Since this article was published, the proposal has been rejected by Congress, therefore the plan was not well thought of.

Article review

I found an article at the Time magazine’s website entitled “The Candidates Play the Market Meltdown.” The article focuses on the statements made by both presidential candidates. Obama was the first to make a statement about the issue. His first tactic was to tie Senator McCain to President Bush and the policies he felt were responsible for the crisis. In the end, Obama’s solution called for “increased consumer protections and tighter oversight and regulation of the financial markets.” Senator McCain called for reform on Wall Street, including “transparency and accountability.” Also he warned about “ineffective regulation” and government bailouts. In a later statement McCain declared the fundamentals of our economy strong. The Obama campaign was quick to attack the claim by using that as evidence that McCain is out of touch. McCain’s reaction was to define what he meant by the fundamentals of our economy which he claims is our workers. I think that people should read this article because it gives a good overview of the candidates’ viewpoint on a huge issue that affects all of us.


http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1841460,00.html