Although modern countries including China and the United States seem to have their feet firmly planted in their established governmental background, it is easy for a country to transition away. Communist China is slowly shifting towards a more democratic nation, expanding their right to free speech and press. Ten years ago in China, no one dared mock government in public press, but now it is more acceptable. Much public ridicule still angers the government, and there remain quite a few things people cannot say. Most Chinese citizens do not know the extent to which speech is free in the United States, and are astounded at how socially acceptable such public mockery is. However, free speech is slowly becoming more prevalent, transitioning the Chinese government towards democracy.
On the other hand, the United States is also slowly moving towards a more communist government. With our current economic situation, increased government intervention is deemed necessary. Multi- billion dollar bailouts are being issued, companies are declaring bankruptcy, and the current projected cost for recovery plans under the Obama Administration is more than the amount spent towards the war in Iraq, and is also more than the cost of the Vietnam War. Also, Obama’s plan of evening the distribution of wealth, narrowing the gap between of the rich and the poor can be considered nothing but Communist. This increased governmental intervention in the economy is moving us closer and closer to a Communist government. I feel that the United States should offer less “second chances” and less economic aid to large businesses. Increased bailouts cost the US even more money and will only cause inflation and worsen the economy.
Countries can either purposely or inadvertently waver from the conventions of their traditional government. Often times, interaction with other countries and individuals, in addition to time and experience can sway the country from their established government, for both good and bad.
Sources
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/viewArticle/19834
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,431523,00.html
Monday, December 22, 2008
Thursday, December 4, 2008
If Conservatives were always in office
Naturally everyone believes that their political party would best serve the country, and with that being said, it is easy for me to claim that the Conservatives would do the best job in office. Many positive changes would be made, and some examples of these are as follows. Government control over economics would be limited. Trade would be free, without barriers, tariffs, and policies, and economic status would be based on individual responsibility and achievement, rather than government aid to overcome poor decision making. Strong family morals would be upheld, and responsibility for personal actions would be promoted, rather than allowing people to do whatever they please without considering consequences. People would be punished appropriately for their actions, with the existence of the death penalty where necessary. Also, anyone of good standing with an adequate physical and mental capacity will maintain their right to own the firearm of their choice, if they so desire.
However, I also recognize that having a party too extreme towards either end of the spectrum would be detrimental to many people. Even if a majority supported Conservatism, there would still be great numbers opposed. Liberals would burst out in protests against almost every governmental action, and other countries with left-winged governments might not support us as readily as if a more centrist party were in office. Also, without the assurance of government backing, people may take less risks and the stock market may not prosper. In addition, people who do not support these morals and ideals may break laws more readily, and enforcement of certain regulations could be problematic.
For these reasons, I strongly feel that Conservatism would have a positive effect on the general public.
However, I also recognize that having a party too extreme towards either end of the spectrum would be detrimental to many people. Even if a majority supported Conservatism, there would still be great numbers opposed. Liberals would burst out in protests against almost every governmental action, and other countries with left-winged governments might not support us as readily as if a more centrist party were in office. Also, without the assurance of government backing, people may take less risks and the stock market may not prosper. In addition, people who do not support these morals and ideals may break laws more readily, and enforcement of certain regulations could be problematic.
For these reasons, I strongly feel that Conservatism would have a positive effect on the general public.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Blog 3: local government funding
Varying levels of government are so intertwined that prosperity or disruptance at any level has a ripple effect, expanding outward and inevitably affecting all other levels accordingly. Each level is saving revenue by passing the problem on to a lower government to deal with. The State of New York is cutting the budget allotted to the specific counties, largely affecting social services.
If it were up to me, I would cut the eligibility and amount of welfare. Many people on welfare are eligible because of income, while realistically, they are well enough suited for a job and are taking advantage of the service. I understand that it is necessary for those who absolutely need assistance in order to provide for their families, but this is not the case for many. If someone is physically and mentally capable to perform a certain job, but choose not to, they should not be able to take advantage of the system and receive help from taxpayers. Also, while our community is extremely fortunate to have such extensive services for the elderly, I feel as though the abundance of cost- free recreation items such as centers for crafts and billiards could be scaled down.
Too much money is spent to make the area look presentable, have recreational items, and account for people not doing their part to provide for themselves. At the same time, funding is being cut across the board, losing revenue for necessary services. The DOT plans to actively cut the allotted amount of road salt this winter, decreasing safety on dangerously icy roads, and local governments are decreasing funding for emergency services. More traffic accidents, but less revenue for salt and guard rails, coupled with decreased funding for fire and ambulance rescue agencies affect the safety of all citizens. Does the reassurance of having safe families and roadways surpass the need for recreation? Unfortunately the answer to this question lies within the power of elected officials who vote based on popularity in an election year.
If it were up to me, I would cut the eligibility and amount of welfare. Many people on welfare are eligible because of income, while realistically, they are well enough suited for a job and are taking advantage of the service. I understand that it is necessary for those who absolutely need assistance in order to provide for their families, but this is not the case for many. If someone is physically and mentally capable to perform a certain job, but choose not to, they should not be able to take advantage of the system and receive help from taxpayers. Also, while our community is extremely fortunate to have such extensive services for the elderly, I feel as though the abundance of cost- free recreation items such as centers for crafts and billiards could be scaled down.
Too much money is spent to make the area look presentable, have recreational items, and account for people not doing their part to provide for themselves. At the same time, funding is being cut across the board, losing revenue for necessary services. The DOT plans to actively cut the allotted amount of road salt this winter, decreasing safety on dangerously icy roads, and local governments are decreasing funding for emergency services. More traffic accidents, but less revenue for salt and guard rails, coupled with decreased funding for fire and ambulance rescue agencies affect the safety of all citizens. Does the reassurance of having safe families and roadways surpass the need for recreation? Unfortunately the answer to this question lies within the power of elected officials who vote based on popularity in an election year.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Blog 2: Political Parties
A French writer, Alphonse Karr once said "The more things change, the more they stay the same." Skepticism of political parties is by no means a modern idea. Our founding fathers were uncertain as to whether political parties would unify people with common beleifs, or tear the country apart into separate groups. Throughout history, the influence of political party loyalites on voting patterns has varied back and forth. During certain time periods, people voted mainly based on what party they belonged to, and other times people took less heed to party loyalites, voting based on thier agreement with specific representatives.
For the upcoming election, the idea of voting based on the specific candidate rather than on allegiance to a party has re-entered as a common style of voting. The whole idea behind electing officials should be to represent our opinions. Voting should be centered around choosing someone best suited for the position, voted in based on their policies and position on certain issues, not just to blindlessly vote for someone becasue they represent a certain party. The whole reason for the initial emergence of political parties, and registering in a party is to join a group that supports your views. If a candidate from an opposing party presents ideas that agree with your own beliefs better than a candidate from your own party, the candidate you agree with should receive the vote.
Americans should have more loyalty to their own thoughts and beliefs than to a group whose purpose is to represent common beliefs. With so many issues, and so many contrasting views, it is almost impossible to find a party that is just right. There are so many different political parties, and it seems as though no specific party agrees perfectly with all of my beliefs. It is therefore, important for Americans to choose for themselves what they feel about certain controversial social and economic issues, and vote according to personal beleifs. Often times, it is feasible to select a party that agrees with almost all of ones political standings, with a few variations of disagreement here and there. However, when ideas over a specific issue waver greatly from that of the party, and combat personal ideas, Americans shoulf remain loyal to that idea rather than the belief attributed to the political party of which they belong.
Today, we see more and more people casting their votes to a candidate from the opposite party, or simply registering under the Independent party. In elections such as the 2008 presidential election, many citizens are extremely informed, and with such extensive invovlement and awareness, many Americans support a certain candidate regardless of political party ties. However, in state and local elections many people vote based on party allegiance, not the candidate themselves, because of a lack of knowledge of the specific ideas of candidates. In such instances, political parties are good. Political parties allow citizens a sense of what common political beliefs a candidate would most likely have, and suggest that a candidate from one's own party is likely to share beliefs on many issues because of the commonality of the party, without having to extensively research candidates.
Personal ideas certainly should take precedence over party loyalty, and people should "swing" to the opposite side when necessary. This freedom of moving back and forth without feeling obligated to vote in a certain way is one of the beauties of the US's political system, and makes the United States who we are today.
For the upcoming election, the idea of voting based on the specific candidate rather than on allegiance to a party has re-entered as a common style of voting. The whole idea behind electing officials should be to represent our opinions. Voting should be centered around choosing someone best suited for the position, voted in based on their policies and position on certain issues, not just to blindlessly vote for someone becasue they represent a certain party. The whole reason for the initial emergence of political parties, and registering in a party is to join a group that supports your views. If a candidate from an opposing party presents ideas that agree with your own beliefs better than a candidate from your own party, the candidate you agree with should receive the vote.
Americans should have more loyalty to their own thoughts and beliefs than to a group whose purpose is to represent common beliefs. With so many issues, and so many contrasting views, it is almost impossible to find a party that is just right. There are so many different political parties, and it seems as though no specific party agrees perfectly with all of my beliefs. It is therefore, important for Americans to choose for themselves what they feel about certain controversial social and economic issues, and vote according to personal beleifs. Often times, it is feasible to select a party that agrees with almost all of ones political standings, with a few variations of disagreement here and there. However, when ideas over a specific issue waver greatly from that of the party, and combat personal ideas, Americans shoulf remain loyal to that idea rather than the belief attributed to the political party of which they belong.
Today, we see more and more people casting their votes to a candidate from the opposite party, or simply registering under the Independent party. In elections such as the 2008 presidential election, many citizens are extremely informed, and with such extensive invovlement and awareness, many Americans support a certain candidate regardless of political party ties. However, in state and local elections many people vote based on party allegiance, not the candidate themselves, because of a lack of knowledge of the specific ideas of candidates. In such instances, political parties are good. Political parties allow citizens a sense of what common political beliefs a candidate would most likely have, and suggest that a candidate from one's own party is likely to share beliefs on many issues because of the commonality of the party, without having to extensively research candidates.
Personal ideas certainly should take precedence over party loyalty, and people should "swing" to the opposite side when necessary. This freedom of moving back and forth without feeling obligated to vote in a certain way is one of the beauties of the US's political system, and makes the United States who we are today.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
My current perspective on the country's economy and government
"Our economy is in a mess" reported Senator McCain. The U.S. housing market "is in shambles", according to Senator Obama. The economy and government go hand in hand, concerning the US's finances and government policies as well as the lives of everyday Americans. Americans are looked upon as both the citizens of a democracy, as well as the people who uphold Americans financial roots in their taxes and on Wall Street.
Within the past week, the Bush administration asked Congress for the authority to spend $700 billion to bail out financial institutions facing bankruptcy and foreclosure. The treasury department is preparing to purchase illiquid mortgage assets, insisting the government will actually make a profit after the economy recovers and these businesses are resold. The government's intervention in order to fix a torn economy is extremely necessary because with bankruptcy inevitable for the Lehman Brothers, and the AIG in serious trouble, the entire housing economy would be destroyed if the governmet did not step in. If this problem is not fixed immediately, the already falling economy will be destroyed, and the United States will not have the markets and opportunities available to satisfy the needs of the people. We need to stop this issue before it gets so far that the only solution is to print more money. Printing more money would be a step forward followed by two steps backward, aiding the economy initailly, but causing extreme inflation, making the dollar worth much less and putting the United States further behind on an international perspective.
With so much stock held in companies such as the Lehman Brothers, the American International Group, Frannie Mae and Frankie Mac, the liquidation of these companies would leave Wall Street in complete disarray, resulting in another Great Depression. The Federal Reserve's agreement to give an $85 billion bailout to AIG is the largest intervention in private business in the federal bank's history since the Great Depression. Hopefully this does not foreshadow another catastrophe.
With such large sums of money coming from the federal reserve, an applicable question becomes the funding for such financial assistance. Thoughts circulating through many minds include increased taxes. No goverment action at all would cause another depression, and printing more money would cause inflation, leaving increased taxes the only plausible response.
These companies certainly should be aided in order to prevent their foreclosure and stop Dow Jones from plummeting downward further towards disaster. However, if the government completely bought these companies, it would be unfair because these businesses would be bailed out with no consequences or worries at all. This is not right because the companies in trouble caused their own problems by lending mortgages to those unable to afford them, and their second chance is at the taxpayers expense. An option that would work nicely would be for the government to lend such companies just enough money to help them get on their feet again on a basis that they will pay this money back over time with interest. Once the mortgage companies restore their business, the economy will once again prosper.
Response to these issues of the funding for such an expenditure, the extent to which the government should intervene, and what should be done has become a major factor in the 2009 presidential elections. Both candidates seem to be approaching these issues with extreme care, trying not to isolate certain groups of people, while campaigning on platforms of what should be done to fix the economy.
Certainly when these loans were provided, the companies thought they were taking small risks that would not put them at a huge expense. Surely the mortgage companies wish they could change the course of events now that their small risks in housing loans have created huge problems. Or, very well-put in a direct quote from Benjamin Franklin, "Beware of little expenses; a small leak will sink a great ship."
Within the past week, the Bush administration asked Congress for the authority to spend $700 billion to bail out financial institutions facing bankruptcy and foreclosure. The treasury department is preparing to purchase illiquid mortgage assets, insisting the government will actually make a profit after the economy recovers and these businesses are resold. The government's intervention in order to fix a torn economy is extremely necessary because with bankruptcy inevitable for the Lehman Brothers, and the AIG in serious trouble, the entire housing economy would be destroyed if the governmet did not step in. If this problem is not fixed immediately, the already falling economy will be destroyed, and the United States will not have the markets and opportunities available to satisfy the needs of the people. We need to stop this issue before it gets so far that the only solution is to print more money. Printing more money would be a step forward followed by two steps backward, aiding the economy initailly, but causing extreme inflation, making the dollar worth much less and putting the United States further behind on an international perspective.
With so much stock held in companies such as the Lehman Brothers, the American International Group, Frannie Mae and Frankie Mac, the liquidation of these companies would leave Wall Street in complete disarray, resulting in another Great Depression. The Federal Reserve's agreement to give an $85 billion bailout to AIG is the largest intervention in private business in the federal bank's history since the Great Depression. Hopefully this does not foreshadow another catastrophe.
With such large sums of money coming from the federal reserve, an applicable question becomes the funding for such financial assistance. Thoughts circulating through many minds include increased taxes. No goverment action at all would cause another depression, and printing more money would cause inflation, leaving increased taxes the only plausible response.
These companies certainly should be aided in order to prevent their foreclosure and stop Dow Jones from plummeting downward further towards disaster. However, if the government completely bought these companies, it would be unfair because these businesses would be bailed out with no consequences or worries at all. This is not right because the companies in trouble caused their own problems by lending mortgages to those unable to afford them, and their second chance is at the taxpayers expense. An option that would work nicely would be for the government to lend such companies just enough money to help them get on their feet again on a basis that they will pay this money back over time with interest. Once the mortgage companies restore their business, the economy will once again prosper.
Response to these issues of the funding for such an expenditure, the extent to which the government should intervene, and what should be done has become a major factor in the 2009 presidential elections. Both candidates seem to be approaching these issues with extreme care, trying not to isolate certain groups of people, while campaigning on platforms of what should be done to fix the economy.
Certainly when these loans were provided, the companies thought they were taking small risks that would not put them at a huge expense. Surely the mortgage companies wish they could change the course of events now that their small risks in housing loans have created huge problems. Or, very well-put in a direct quote from Benjamin Franklin, "Beware of little expenses; a small leak will sink a great ship."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)