Nuclear weapons pose a great threat to world peace, and many countries now claim that they right a right to them. One specific current issue has to do with Iran and their move towards becoming nuclear. Iran has proved to be untrustworthy, and the president has even gone as far to claim that Israel should be wiped off the map. With a large portion of the country wanting to destroy other countries such as Israel and America, allowing them to become nuclear proves an immense threat. The United States as well as their ally Israel currently has sanctions on Iran in hopes that they will stop their nuclear program. Iran claims that their becoming a nuclear nation is only for peaceful purposes, such as supplying nuclear energy to citizens, but the U.S. obviously doesn’t agree since they reacted with putting sanctions on Iran. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, “Iran has so far done little to disprove the allegations that it may have been trying to develop a nuclear warhead.” In my opinion, the Unites States is proving to be very weak, which only gives the impression to Iran that they can and will continue with their nuclear program. The sanctions obviously are not working, as the U.S. and Israel plan to further tighten them soon. Other strong countries, such as Russia, have made exceptions to the sanctions, which allow them to basically support Iran’s program. President Obama didn’t protest against this by allowing it to happen, and is doing nothing to stop it. With countries like Iran that know no limits, it’s impossible to reason with them. In fact, the Iranian government probably knows by now that Obama is such a weak president who will try to reason rather than use force, so they’d feel more comfortable proceeding with their nuclear programs. If Obama really wanted to stop this, he would have used force, however, he won’t because it would be unpopular and he is already well into campaigning for a second term. Unless we decide to inspect the facilities and is necessary forcefully stop Iran, they will continue their program.
http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=1448680&pageNum=2
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Japanese Economy
In order to understand the Japanese economy, it’s very important to note that the country has little to no natural resources, as it is a relatively small island compared to its population. Because of the geographical situation, the Japanese economy relies heavily on its exports to other countries. In U.S. dollars for easier understanding, Japan currently has a GDP of $4.15 trillion, the 4th largest in the world. It makes sense to have a large amount of purchasing power, as the Japanese have a reliance on buying raw materials from other countries. The labor force is divided up into three sections, with 4% in agriculture, 28% in industry, and 68% in services. The unemployment rate, although not nearly as bad as the United States, is at 5.1% according to the 2009 records, which I’d assume it only grew in the year 2010. Their external debt as of June 30, 2009 is $2.132 trillion, and is the 8th highest when compared to other nations of the world. It’s easy to see that the Japanese economy is very advanced, and is growing at a very fast rate as well. For the Japanese, however, that isn’t purely good news. The value of their currency, the Yen, has been increasing dramatically in comparison to other currencies of the world. This leads into probably one of the most current important issues surrounding the Yen. The key to understanding why the Japanese want their Yen to be devalued is because their economy relies heavily on imports and exports. If, for example, 1 yen was valued at 10 U.S. dollars, then a Japanese product that cost 5 yen to make will sell for $50 in America. However, if the yen increased to 5 yen per 10 dollars, then the same product would only bring in $10 to the Japanese economy after the currency exchange. One of the reasons why here in America we are able to purchase exported Chinese goods at low prices is because the Chinese government, although at the expense of the country’s standard of living, artificially keeps the Yuan at a low value. The Japanese are a democracy though, so it poses a problem on how much the government should intervene in the free economy to artificially lower the value of their currency. Overall, the Japanese are doing incredibly well in the economic sector. That said, having their currency backed up by U.S. dollars, and having the U.S. being one of their largest purchasers of exported goods, the Japanese are being hurt by the global economic crisis. Other than the looming currency war, however, Japan seems to be doing just fine relative to other structured nations.
http://www.economywatch.com/world_economy/japan/
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ja.html
http://www.economywatch.com/world_economy/japan/
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ja.html
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
MA Governor: Jill Stein
Jill Stein is the fourth and final candidate for the governor’s race, and represents the Green-Rainbow Party. While I usually will side with Conservatives, I can still see benefits of the Democrats, such as gay marriage, stem-cell research, and abortion rights. However, as much as I try to find the good with Stein, I simply can’t. I find her to be ignorant of the world around her, as well as very unknowledgeable about everything she stands for. She seems to me to only partake in first-stage thinking, only considering what sounds good and fair and peaceful without going to further levels of thinking, considering many of her ‘benefits’ have dire consequences. I’ll try to point out issue-by-issue why exactly I have a problem with Stein.
First of all, it only makes my blood boil hearing her say that higher-income taxpayers don’t understand the burden of taxes and aren’t paying their fair share. First of all, looking at data from 2007, the top 1% paid 40.42% of all federal income taxes according to the IRS. And if a person who went through years of specialized training and now works 10 demanding hours everyday plus overnight on-call and pays about half of their overall income to the government isn’t paying a “fair share,” than I don’t know what is. Stein is under the impression that higher income earners have no problems with money or debt and live life the easy way by taking advantage of others. She is very mistaken, and by raising taxes to be more “fair,” she will only hurt the upper-middle class since larger corporations and multimillionaires have the resources to move their money else ware in order to evade taxes. Personal rants aside; raising taxes also is a horrible move during a recession. With the economy so tight right now with not a lot of circulation of currency, you want to encourage consumers to go out and buy new products. Taking away more of their money will only make them hold on to what they have, one reason being because they now need to be more cautious with their money, and another being how they wouldn’t have predictability in the market anymore, only further encouraging them to hold on to their money.
Second is her issue on green jobs. Green jobs simply are not efficient, and in times like these the economy and welfare of the economic situation of the U.S. is more important than the environment. If green jobs were as incredibly efficient on saving money and putting people to work as Stein claims, then why aren’t they already here? Businesses have one main goal, which is to turn a profit. If green jobs would help them save money while putting people to work and while keeping a profit, the businesses would have had green jobs be a priority for years now. The government has no right to step into the free market and use taxpayer money to create jobs that wouldn’t prove to be worth it any time soon. Once the government beings to promote jobs in their interests, they’re going to have to keep pouring money into the program, because the businesses will refuse to pay more money for a worker simply because it’s a green job. She seems to only want to use other people’s money to clean up the planet rather than help the economy and social stability of the state.
Third is her stance on healthcare. She states on her website how she is supportive of a single payer system, and would promote a similar model would she be elected. Once again, she only thinks at the first-stage level saying that all this plan will do is lower costs and make everything better. What she doesn’t understand are the consequences. First of all, I don’t think it should be my family’s responsibility to pick up the tab for other people. While I think that our current system is extremely inefficient, I think a single-payer tax system would only be moving backwards. Already, as my father has seen in the emergency room, people come in for the most ridiculous things, such as a splinter or an ache somewhere in their body, since patients can’t be denied emergency medical care. This is a complete waste of time and resources for the hospitals and doctors, who sometimes, will only be paid 20$ for a few patients who come in on government-funded Medicaid. Not only will people feel like they can go to the doctor for any reason, but there will be long lines. One of the most critical aspects of the healthcare systems in countries such as Canada is the long lines, as well as the equipment not being as good as it is in America. Many more people will be going to the hospital, and people who are in need of emergency medical care might not be able to see a doctor with the long lines. I feel like I should point out how the Premier of Newfoundland & Labrador traveled all the way to the United States for his heart surgery; this only suggests that the technology wasn’t as good in Canada, or that the lines would take too long. In one incident, 150 ill patients with cerebral hemorrhages (bleeding in the brain), were rushed to the U.S. because there weren’t enough beds in Canada. Stating that the cost of healthcare would decrease because of a single-payer system also doesn’t make sense to me, since Canada has spent billions of dollars just to decrease the wait times.
I think it’s be pretty obvious about my stance on Jill Stein as a candidate, thus if I had to vote for her, she’s be my last choice out of the 4. I realize that I haven’t gone into the education aspect of her candidacy, but from what I’ve skimmed she basically has the same as the other candidates: overall improve the system, help with funding, and give students a better environment to learn in. To be honest, I don’t feel like going too much into depth with the issue since I think I overdid it a little considering the assignment was a 250-word blog…
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article661794.ece
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/top-1-paid-more-in-federal-income-taxes-than-bottom-95-in-07/
First of all, it only makes my blood boil hearing her say that higher-income taxpayers don’t understand the burden of taxes and aren’t paying their fair share. First of all, looking at data from 2007, the top 1% paid 40.42% of all federal income taxes according to the IRS. And if a person who went through years of specialized training and now works 10 demanding hours everyday plus overnight on-call and pays about half of their overall income to the government isn’t paying a “fair share,” than I don’t know what is. Stein is under the impression that higher income earners have no problems with money or debt and live life the easy way by taking advantage of others. She is very mistaken, and by raising taxes to be more “fair,” she will only hurt the upper-middle class since larger corporations and multimillionaires have the resources to move their money else ware in order to evade taxes. Personal rants aside; raising taxes also is a horrible move during a recession. With the economy so tight right now with not a lot of circulation of currency, you want to encourage consumers to go out and buy new products. Taking away more of their money will only make them hold on to what they have, one reason being because they now need to be more cautious with their money, and another being how they wouldn’t have predictability in the market anymore, only further encouraging them to hold on to their money.
Second is her issue on green jobs. Green jobs simply are not efficient, and in times like these the economy and welfare of the economic situation of the U.S. is more important than the environment. If green jobs were as incredibly efficient on saving money and putting people to work as Stein claims, then why aren’t they already here? Businesses have one main goal, which is to turn a profit. If green jobs would help them save money while putting people to work and while keeping a profit, the businesses would have had green jobs be a priority for years now. The government has no right to step into the free market and use taxpayer money to create jobs that wouldn’t prove to be worth it any time soon. Once the government beings to promote jobs in their interests, they’re going to have to keep pouring money into the program, because the businesses will refuse to pay more money for a worker simply because it’s a green job. She seems to only want to use other people’s money to clean up the planet rather than help the economy and social stability of the state.
Third is her stance on healthcare. She states on her website how she is supportive of a single payer system, and would promote a similar model would she be elected. Once again, she only thinks at the first-stage level saying that all this plan will do is lower costs and make everything better. What she doesn’t understand are the consequences. First of all, I don’t think it should be my family’s responsibility to pick up the tab for other people. While I think that our current system is extremely inefficient, I think a single-payer tax system would only be moving backwards. Already, as my father has seen in the emergency room, people come in for the most ridiculous things, such as a splinter or an ache somewhere in their body, since patients can’t be denied emergency medical care. This is a complete waste of time and resources for the hospitals and doctors, who sometimes, will only be paid 20$ for a few patients who come in on government-funded Medicaid. Not only will people feel like they can go to the doctor for any reason, but there will be long lines. One of the most critical aspects of the healthcare systems in countries such as Canada is the long lines, as well as the equipment not being as good as it is in America. Many more people will be going to the hospital, and people who are in need of emergency medical care might not be able to see a doctor with the long lines. I feel like I should point out how the Premier of Newfoundland & Labrador traveled all the way to the United States for his heart surgery; this only suggests that the technology wasn’t as good in Canada, or that the lines would take too long. In one incident, 150 ill patients with cerebral hemorrhages (bleeding in the brain), were rushed to the U.S. because there weren’t enough beds in Canada. Stating that the cost of healthcare would decrease because of a single-payer system also doesn’t make sense to me, since Canada has spent billions of dollars just to decrease the wait times.
I think it’s be pretty obvious about my stance on Jill Stein as a candidate, thus if I had to vote for her, she’s be my last choice out of the 4. I realize that I haven’t gone into the education aspect of her candidacy, but from what I’ve skimmed she basically has the same as the other candidates: overall improve the system, help with funding, and give students a better environment to learn in. To be honest, I don’t feel like going too much into depth with the issue since I think I overdid it a little considering the assignment was a 250-word blog…
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article661794.ece
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/top-1-paid-more-in-federal-income-taxes-than-bottom-95-in-07/
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
MA Governor: Tim Cahill
Tim Cahill is the only Independent running for the Massachusetts governor’s race this election. As an independent, he isn’t affiliated with either the Democrat or Republican Party, but it should be noted that he was registered as a Democrat before his change of parties. However, by looking at his website and the views on which he bases his campaign, he seems to lean more towards the Conservative side.
There are a few reasons why Cahill should be chosen as governor over the former two candidates. By only reading his campaign website, Cahill looks like he’s more of a Conservative, whom I tend to mostly agree with. I support his method of how he wants to lower taxes of all kinds. Lowering the taxes will ease the burden on employers, allowing them to expand their business and thus hiring more people. He also seems to understand that sometimes promoting alternative energy, while ‘benefitting’ the environment, can hurt the economy. Finally, I agree with his stance on illegal immigration; if the federal government won’t help with the problem, then the states should try to fix the issue on a smaller scale.
As with all candidates, however, there are reasons why Cahill shouldn’t be voted in as governor. To me, he doesn’t seem like the trustworthiness person. I simply don’t understand how he can change his entire views on certain issues 180 degrees around in, comparatively speaking, only a short amount of time. During the election of Deval Patrick, Cahill himself supported the tax increases and tended to side with the Democrats most of the time. To change into almost a polar opposite just seems fishy to me. There’s speculation that the only reason why he’s running is to attempt to divide the Republican Party base in Massachusetts between Baker and himself so that Patrick is reelected. Considering how he went from supporting higher taxes and Democratic principals to Conservative ones, that assumption doesn’t look like it could be far off. On the issues themselves as displayed on his website, he doesn’t elaborate on healthcare. Like every candidate so far, he claims that he would be able to lower the costs of healthcare, and also like every candidate so far, he doesn’t say how. How he will approach lowering the costs is more important to me than only saying that it’s an important issue to him.
Overall I probably wouldn’t vote for Cahill. At first, when looking at his website, he seemed to me a worthier candidate than Baker if I were able to vote. The main issue that I have is that I find it hard to believe that he believes everything on his website which he claims to stand for. With the public turning away from the Democrats because of their inability to fix the economy, it’s in the candidates’ interest to claim that they aren’t with Obama, but are either more Independent or Republican. I think that Cahill is exactly one of those people, who are only putting out what the people want to hear, not what he stands for. Overall, I support strongly the positions that he claims to have, but I just don’t think he is truly a Conservative-leaning Independent.
There are a few reasons why Cahill should be chosen as governor over the former two candidates. By only reading his campaign website, Cahill looks like he’s more of a Conservative, whom I tend to mostly agree with. I support his method of how he wants to lower taxes of all kinds. Lowering the taxes will ease the burden on employers, allowing them to expand their business and thus hiring more people. He also seems to understand that sometimes promoting alternative energy, while ‘benefitting’ the environment, can hurt the economy. Finally, I agree with his stance on illegal immigration; if the federal government won’t help with the problem, then the states should try to fix the issue on a smaller scale.
As with all candidates, however, there are reasons why Cahill shouldn’t be voted in as governor. To me, he doesn’t seem like the trustworthiness person. I simply don’t understand how he can change his entire views on certain issues 180 degrees around in, comparatively speaking, only a short amount of time. During the election of Deval Patrick, Cahill himself supported the tax increases and tended to side with the Democrats most of the time. To change into almost a polar opposite just seems fishy to me. There’s speculation that the only reason why he’s running is to attempt to divide the Republican Party base in Massachusetts between Baker and himself so that Patrick is reelected. Considering how he went from supporting higher taxes and Democratic principals to Conservative ones, that assumption doesn’t look like it could be far off. On the issues themselves as displayed on his website, he doesn’t elaborate on healthcare. Like every candidate so far, he claims that he would be able to lower the costs of healthcare, and also like every candidate so far, he doesn’t say how. How he will approach lowering the costs is more important to me than only saying that it’s an important issue to him.
Overall I probably wouldn’t vote for Cahill. At first, when looking at his website, he seemed to me a worthier candidate than Baker if I were able to vote. The main issue that I have is that I find it hard to believe that he believes everything on his website which he claims to stand for. With the public turning away from the Democrats because of their inability to fix the economy, it’s in the candidates’ interest to claim that they aren’t with Obama, but are either more Independent or Republican. I think that Cahill is exactly one of those people, who are only putting out what the people want to hear, not what he stands for. Overall, I support strongly the positions that he claims to have, but I just don’t think he is truly a Conservative-leaning Independent.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Government MA: Charlie Baker
Charlie Baker is the Republican candidate running for the Massachusetts governor position. Because he is a Republican, he tends to believe the opposite of what the Democratic candidate, Deval Patrick, believes. There are a few reasons why he should be chosen as the governor over all of the other candidates. One would be how he wants to stop wasteful government spending and wants to create a more organized budget for the state. He also supports the public school system and claims to want to fix it. His stance of Healthcare is to lower it, as governor Patrick also wants to do. However, most government officials don’t know how the system works and because Baker was the CEO of an insurance agency, he knows exactly how the insurance companies work. Another positive is how Baker wants to lower taxes basically across the board, allowing people to spend more money in the economy rather than saving it thinking that their taxes could be going up. Finally, I agree with him on his stance of illegal immigrants. He supports the Arizona law and doesn’t think illegal immigration should be rewarded with tax-funded benefits.
The positive being said, there certainly are negatives and why you shouldn’t vote for Charlie Baker. First, he says he wants to stop wasteful government spending. While I believe that he honestly wants to, I doubt that he will. In my opinion, the Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats. They say they will lower spending, but the spending only goes up. His claim that he will lower healthcare costs also doesn’t make sense to me. He won’t specify on how he will accomplish this goal, which only leads me to assume that his solution is government intervention to artificially lower prices. With the new federal healthcare bill, costs will go up and I don’t believe Baker can stop it.
With a choice of only Baker and Patrick, I would side with Baker. Deval Patrick as proven to me to be untrustworthy, and I am against him on many policies. While in effect I don’t think Baker would be an opposite to Patrick, I agree more so with his stance on policies and the fact that he wants to lower taxes, which I think are ridiculously high.
The positive being said, there certainly are negatives and why you shouldn’t vote for Charlie Baker. First, he says he wants to stop wasteful government spending. While I believe that he honestly wants to, I doubt that he will. In my opinion, the Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats. They say they will lower spending, but the spending only goes up. His claim that he will lower healthcare costs also doesn’t make sense to me. He won’t specify on how he will accomplish this goal, which only leads me to assume that his solution is government intervention to artificially lower prices. With the new federal healthcare bill, costs will go up and I don’t believe Baker can stop it.
With a choice of only Baker and Patrick, I would side with Baker. Deval Patrick as proven to me to be untrustworthy, and I am against him on many policies. While in effect I don’t think Baker would be an opposite to Patrick, I agree more so with his stance on policies and the fact that he wants to lower taxes, which I think are ridiculously high.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
MA Governor- Deval Patrick
Governor Deval Patrick is up for reelection this year for the Massachusetts governor race. He is the candidate for the Democratic Party, running against candidates from the green rainbow party, Republican Party, and an independent. While not everyone agrees with everything he stands far, there are certain reasons why he should be reelected and certain reasons why he shouldn’t.
The current governor should be reelected by the citizens of Massachusetts because of a few motives. One reason should be because he is our current governor. In these rough times where time is important in making decisions, Patrick would be able to return to a familiar environment where he could get back to work. Other candidates, if elected, would need a few days to get used to being governor and would have to be briefed of what had been going on behind the scenes. In my opinion, he also seems to have good intentions. For example, from reading his post on Boston.com and from looking at his website, he feels like education is one of the most important issues that should be dealt with. If what he says is true, then he could end up helping the education system.
The positives being said, there are also reasons why Patrick shouldn’t be reelected as governor. Two aspects that stood out to me were those on energy and immigration. According to the Boston.com post written by Patrick himself, he thinks that it’s time to be in a clean energy world. I disagree with that. I feel that the era of clean energy will come when it’s cheaper and more accessible than fossil fuel based energy. When the public wants it, they will buy it, and seeing as though everyone prefers fossil fuel based sources rather than wind or solar, whether it be the price or a different issue, it is not the era of clean energy. With Patrick, the government will be promoting an industry that the people, by voting with their dollars, don’t want as much as other industries. I feel that this is a waste of time and money and is a place where the government doesn’t belong. On the issue of immigration, the governor did not answer the question given to him. Nowhere in his post does he say he agrees or disagrees with the Arizona law. By looking at his track record, I feel as if he doesn’t know how to deal with the issue. By giving tax-supported public housing, university tuitions, and drivers’ licenses to people who come here in vain of the law, I see it as he is rewarding those who have broken the law with the citizens’ money. If he must use taxes to pay for other’s colleges and housing, he should give it to tax-paying citizens, not people who have broken the law. On a final issue, he doesn’t give an answer as to what he will do with the economy. He states that his administration will create jobs, and the new jobs are needed, but I think it’s safe to say that everyone would agree. He doesn’t, however, say exactly how he will creates these jobs he talks about, which gives me the impression that, for some reason, his method could have a consequence that he doesn’t want the public to know.
Overall, I think it’s easy to see that I don’t support him as a governor. I think he’s irresponsible with money, and can’t manage it well. I also disagree with him on many issues, and his record of his time as governor doesn’t seem to sit very well. While I’d first assume he’d be better than a Green-Rainbow Party candidate, I have a strong feeling that I’d choose either the Republican or the Independent before Deval Patrick.
The current governor should be reelected by the citizens of Massachusetts because of a few motives. One reason should be because he is our current governor. In these rough times where time is important in making decisions, Patrick would be able to return to a familiar environment where he could get back to work. Other candidates, if elected, would need a few days to get used to being governor and would have to be briefed of what had been going on behind the scenes. In my opinion, he also seems to have good intentions. For example, from reading his post on Boston.com and from looking at his website, he feels like education is one of the most important issues that should be dealt with. If what he says is true, then he could end up helping the education system.
The positives being said, there are also reasons why Patrick shouldn’t be reelected as governor. Two aspects that stood out to me were those on energy and immigration. According to the Boston.com post written by Patrick himself, he thinks that it’s time to be in a clean energy world. I disagree with that. I feel that the era of clean energy will come when it’s cheaper and more accessible than fossil fuel based energy. When the public wants it, they will buy it, and seeing as though everyone prefers fossil fuel based sources rather than wind or solar, whether it be the price or a different issue, it is not the era of clean energy. With Patrick, the government will be promoting an industry that the people, by voting with their dollars, don’t want as much as other industries. I feel that this is a waste of time and money and is a place where the government doesn’t belong. On the issue of immigration, the governor did not answer the question given to him. Nowhere in his post does he say he agrees or disagrees with the Arizona law. By looking at his track record, I feel as if he doesn’t know how to deal with the issue. By giving tax-supported public housing, university tuitions, and drivers’ licenses to people who come here in vain of the law, I see it as he is rewarding those who have broken the law with the citizens’ money. If he must use taxes to pay for other’s colleges and housing, he should give it to tax-paying citizens, not people who have broken the law. On a final issue, he doesn’t give an answer as to what he will do with the economy. He states that his administration will create jobs, and the new jobs are needed, but I think it’s safe to say that everyone would agree. He doesn’t, however, say exactly how he will creates these jobs he talks about, which gives me the impression that, for some reason, his method could have a consequence that he doesn’t want the public to know.
Overall, I think it’s easy to see that I don’t support him as a governor. I think he’s irresponsible with money, and can’t manage it well. I also disagree with him on many issues, and his record of his time as governor doesn’t seem to sit very well. While I’d first assume he’d be better than a Green-Rainbow Party candidate, I have a strong feeling that I’d choose either the Republican or the Independent before Deval Patrick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)