In the post http://inanationofwhat.blogspot.com“History in the making for same-sex marriage”,
Angela Martinez makes a great point at commenting about why same-sex marriages
should have the same rights as heterosexuals.
I thought this commentary was very informative and made good arguments
for same sex marriages. I consider
myself spiritual and base my decisions on biblical principles, but regardless
of what I believe, I too think that is a personal decision one should make for
themselves. I agree with Angela’s
commentary because I don’t think the government should approve or disapprove who
we marry based on gender. She also makes
the argument that government shouldn’t deny benefits to a partner of a same-sex
marriage. I couldn’t agree more. I think that is just wrong. Why should they or anyone else tell them who
can benefit. That is a prejudice. I think we all have a right to believe what
we choose and that is what makes this country great. For our government to pick certain ideals and
instill laws governing personal, and private matters are not for them to
decide. Like Angela, I think it is fair
to have the citizens of the country vote on same-sex marriage, this will be a better
indicator of how we feel regarding this matter, as a country.
Iris' Politics
Friday, December 14, 2012
Friday, November 30, 2012
In A Time Of Crisis
In our recent economic crisis we, our government has come up
with many ideas on how to create jobs, decrease national debt, and simply put…
strength our crumbling economy. It seems
that everyone in Washington is trying to find a way to decrease our spending. But no one considers one area of spending too
much….our congressmen’s salaries along with other government employees. Why doesn’t anyone bring this up for
question? We are talking about being a
troubled time, when we must make some sacrifices to get us out of the whole we
are in, so why it is so bad to decrease their salaries a bit?
Many government employees make more than the president! The average salary for a congressmen is $174,000,
and salaries for party leaders exceed that.
This doesn’t include all of the benefits they receive which is much
greater than most of our professions offer.
And according to many sources this is increasing.
I am in no way trying to say that their jobs aren’t
important and worthy of a substantial pay. But I do think they are entitled to
a fair pay… not an enormous and lucrative one, just because they are
politicians and apparently we have so much money we are giving out raises
consistently.
It is fair to say they hold the important task of running
our government, and should be paid accordingly, but I can’t understand how we
are in a debt crisis and while so many people are losing their jobs because of
how bad our economy is our government employees are getting raises with their
already high salaries. Maybe it’s time
we cap that!
Friday, November 16, 2012
"Increasing NASA's Budget"
I find the commentary on “Increasing NASA’s Budget” by
Chelse Martin www.americanspushingthedebt.blogspot.com interesting because it brings up space exploration, a topic I
rarely see in headlines anymore. I agree
with this commentary, but for different reasons. I too have strong religious
beliefs, but I don’t see a catastrophic event as the only reason to invest in space exploration. I too believe
the country is spending too much money on things that shouldn’t be a top priority. While space exploration is important and we
should work to be a leader in it, desperate times call for desperate measures,
and I do believe NASA’s funding should be decreased, as it has. I wish this commentary had a bit more
information on the original authors facts and claims to better understand his
point of view but all in all I think the commentary was well written and to the
point.
Friday, November 2, 2012
U.S. Trade Deficit
In recent
years our economy has made the headlines for its undeniable crisis. Our high unemployment rates, increasing debt
and trade deficit are just some of the problems we face. We’ve heard about it time and time again, but
how do we begin to fix this?
I think we
need to focus on our trade deficit with China to start. China is known as a currency manipulator,
they lower their currency so that then their exports are cheaper than our
exports. This then affects our
manufacturing, our jobs. It’s a domino effect.
We need to end tax breaks for companies taking jobs overseas, and decrease tax
on manufacturers doing business here. This
will offer them an incentive for creating business here and will in turn create
more jobs. Then our economy will become
stronger.
We need to
do whatever is necessary to get our jobs here and I really think it lies in formulating
a plan to get businesses to manufacture here and not outsourcing. Our standards for trade with China need to
tighten. China looks for its financial
interest, and if we set in place limits or standards that they must abide by if
they want our business they will, but not doing so will just continue to fuel a
dependency on them.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Freedoms Questioned
On October 18, 2012 USA Today published an article by the editorial board arguing that getting tough with Chinese trade will hurt us, not help us. I believe the authors were credible because they are adequately representative of financial and economic groups within USA Today. The intended audience is Americans.
The article states several reasons why "China Bashing" won't work. For example, it says "U.S.-China is complex, the U.S. needs China to pressure North Korea against Iran's nuclear ambitions," which may not happen if trade with them halts. Also, "if China stopped buying U.S. bonds, interest rates would increase."
The article claims that it would hurt American companies because their sales would decrease dramatically due to no longer having a competitive edge. Lastly, it states the plan simply wouldn't work. "China will never change under pressure from the U.S. It take them believing their policies are not in their best interest for any serious change to occur. The article suggests the U.S. should take a "more mature and sophisticated approach, and not one that could spark a trade war that would backfire on U.S. consumers and business," but never suggests what that should be.
I disagree. We need to concentrate on growing our economy and that should include more U.S. made products, and less Chinese products, which will lead to growing U.S. businesses, and in turn more U.S. manufacturing jobs. Why is this hard for some to believe? It's simple, the more we rely on other countries the worse off we will be. Period. We need to become a more independent country. If China wants our business they will conform to our standards. We need to set in place incentives for companies who do their business here to help accommodate them for higher wages they pay here. I think its important to become self-sufficient as a country, its affecting us now and will for future generations.
The article states several reasons why "China Bashing" won't work. For example, it says "U.S.-China is complex, the U.S. needs China to pressure North Korea against Iran's nuclear ambitions," which may not happen if trade with them halts. Also, "if China stopped buying U.S. bonds, interest rates would increase."
The article claims that it would hurt American companies because their sales would decrease dramatically due to no longer having a competitive edge. Lastly, it states the plan simply wouldn't work. "China will never change under pressure from the U.S. It take them believing their policies are not in their best interest for any serious change to occur. The article suggests the U.S. should take a "more mature and sophisticated approach, and not one that could spark a trade war that would backfire on U.S. consumers and business," but never suggests what that should be.
I disagree. We need to concentrate on growing our economy and that should include more U.S. made products, and less Chinese products, which will lead to growing U.S. businesses, and in turn more U.S. manufacturing jobs. Why is this hard for some to believe? It's simple, the more we rely on other countries the worse off we will be. Period. We need to become a more independent country. If China wants our business they will conform to our standards. We need to set in place incentives for companies who do their business here to help accommodate them for higher wages they pay here. I think its important to become self-sufficient as a country, its affecting us now and will for future generations.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Presidential Debate
On October 2, 2012 The Washington Post published a
commentary titled “A prime-time chance for candidates to discuss the future”,
written by their editorial board. I
believe the authors are adequately credible because they each specialize in
different areas of politics within the Washington Post. Their intended audience is voting Americans, viewers
of the presidential debate, and those interested in the realm of this election.
The commentary claims that “the 2012 presidential election
has been about the past.” “…we hope the candidates will devote more attention
to the future: specifically, to what they hope to accomplish over the next four
years.” It argues that the recent presidential
debate was hardly informative in establishing what each candidate would do if
he was elected for president. I have to
say I completely agree. As an undecided voter I was looking at this debate as
an opportunity to see more defined plan or path each candidate would take if
elected, but I don’t feel that I got that at all.
The article argues that President Obama had nothing hopeful
to offer the unemployed, or how he’d persuade Congress to move the nation from
mounting debt, and how we will overcome failure. And Mr. Romney was not much
different, promising to get the economy growing again, and reducing tax rates,
and reduce government spending. But
how? Well, we don’t know. It seems they both have a magic solution they
won’t share.
Though I do think these topics are not cut and dry easy things
to explain in a short debate, I believe it is their obligation to tell us their
solutions to some of the major problems we face today. Yes you need to cut
spending, but what will you cut? A
couple programs aren't going to cut it. I think their fear of losing votes limits
what they tell us. But this is our right
to know. Maybe if candidates started being
open and honest about their true thoughts and solutions we would get more done.
We would, in a sense, know what to expect when they take office, and not be
surprised by the broken promises. I say
tell us the truth, not what you think we want to hear.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
An article published by the Huffington Post on September 19,2012, Mitt Romney explains his stance on dependency on government and comments he made at a fundraiser where he states, "47 percent of Americans are "dependent on government" and view themselves as victims."
He goes on to say he "believes the way to lift people and help people have higher incomes is not to take from some and give to others but to create wealth for all." He then criticizes Obama for believing in redistribution of wealth and looking to it for improving our economy. He shows a link where Obama says to "spread the wealth around" is good for everybody, arguing that an economy benefiting all is important to growth.
I was drawn to this article because I feel its one of the biggest problems our government faces today. In a time when unemployment rate is at a consistent high and we are in a debt crisis, its time to start looking at our presidential candidates stances on this issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)