In “Tax-payer money used for a research project in Argentina...,” Elizabeth makes a great point. This study that the U.S. Government is funding in Buenos Aires is ridiculous! I can’t believe the government would spend the money of hard-earned tax payers on a study that is so irrelevant to U.S. citizens.
The fact of the matter is, though, the U.S. government has a track record of wasteful spending, which can be seen in the article, “Top 10 Examples of Government Waste.”
It is time for the government to stop wasting our money and stop this wasteful spending. We are in times of economic depression. The primary focus of the government should be to fix the trials that we, Americans, are facing in America, and then, maybe they can go and worry about impractical things, like this study to find out why gay men engage in risky sexual behavior while drunk. I mean come on; it doesn’t take rocket science to figure that out. They are human, and they are men.
The government ought to be limited in size and scope, and there needs to be a reduction of taxation and spending, so that it can follow its Constitutional role.
The U.S. government needs to be more concerned with what’s going on here, that in foreign countries. Our money needs to be spent wisely.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
The Climate Debate
President Obama supports a bill that aims to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, tackle the rise in greenhouse gases and create millions of clean-energy jobs. This bill, which includes a cap and trade system that would curb carbon emissions 20% by 2020 and a renewal energy standard that would require a certain amount of alternative energy be used every year, has created much debate in Congress, for many different groups exist, having different demands. (These demands and arguments can be found here)
Even though many who support the bill believe that it will create millions of clean-energy jobs and save families hundreds of dollars a year, there are still those who believe that the bill is a "huge mistake" that will “increase the cost of living and maybe kill jobs.” (Climate Bill ‘Huge Mistake’)
I think that even though the climate bill has flaws, it is a great start to a problem that has been ignored for too long. Yes, there are many opposing sides to the bill, and lets face it, not everybody is going to be satisfied with all parts of it, but it is a much needed bill. Since previous bills focusing exclusively on capping emissions have gone nowhere, other provisions aimed at increasing energy efficiency, encouraging cleaner energy sources, and providing subsidies for industries that produce them have been made.
So with many people and Republicans believing that the bill would bankrupt the economy, the truth is that no one knows how much this bill will cost because one like it has never been done.
As stated in The Climate Debate Heats Up, the emissions cap will not begin to bite until 2012 and that past programs to clean the air have always cost less than predicted. And, if the scientists are right, we know that the costs of doing nothing will dwarf the costs of acting now.
So the Climate Bill is definitely important, and I believe that it is a good thing that the bill is being debated in Congress so that a solution will be made and it can be passed.
Even though many who support the bill believe that it will create millions of clean-energy jobs and save families hundreds of dollars a year, there are still those who believe that the bill is a "huge mistake" that will “increase the cost of living and maybe kill jobs.” (Climate Bill ‘Huge Mistake’)
I think that even though the climate bill has flaws, it is a great start to a problem that has been ignored for too long. Yes, there are many opposing sides to the bill, and lets face it, not everybody is going to be satisfied with all parts of it, but it is a much needed bill. Since previous bills focusing exclusively on capping emissions have gone nowhere, other provisions aimed at increasing energy efficiency, encouraging cleaner energy sources, and providing subsidies for industries that produce them have been made.
So with many people and Republicans believing that the bill would bankrupt the economy, the truth is that no one knows how much this bill will cost because one like it has never been done.
As stated in The Climate Debate Heats Up, the emissions cap will not begin to bite until 2012 and that past programs to clean the air have always cost less than predicted. And, if the scientists are right, we know that the costs of doing nothing will dwarf the costs of acting now.
So the Climate Bill is definitely important, and I believe that it is a good thing that the bill is being debated in Congress so that a solution will be made and it can be passed.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Is Universal Healthcare Smart?
In "Universal Healthcare a MUST DO," Mavhu makes a great point, and I agree with her on many levels, for these past two weeks I have experienced the financial difficulites that come along with medical costs, but I believe that universal healthcare would not be a smart idea. Universal healthcare is a great ideal, but healthcare as we know it would change.
Mavhu speaks off of experience, saying that when she was here in America, she was unable to visit the doctor until she got back home where she would not have to worry about the medical costs. Man, if I did not have to worry about the medical bills I am having to pay now, I would be much less stress, but still, I do not agree with universal healthcare. In the UK, where she was able to go see a physician without worries of bills, healthcare is completely different and there are still negatives. In countries where there is universal healthcare, they promise universal coverage but ration care or have extremely long waiting lists for treatment, along with other barrieres. Also, with universal healthcare, I believe that the overall value of care would go down, along with decreased advancement in technology. This type of universal healthcare, ran by the government, is not ideal in anyway.
Another point I would like to point out is that the slogan "people always want what they don't have" stands true; for, countries that have universal healthcare are actually moving towards a system that looks more like ours, while we are moving towards one that is like theirs. So, I believe that we should not try to move to have complete universal healthcare, but to make it where we are in more control and where there could be more consumer incentives.
Mavhu speaks off of experience, saying that when she was here in America, she was unable to visit the doctor until she got back home where she would not have to worry about the medical costs. Man, if I did not have to worry about the medical bills I am having to pay now, I would be much less stress, but still, I do not agree with universal healthcare. In the UK, where she was able to go see a physician without worries of bills, healthcare is completely different and there are still negatives. In countries where there is universal healthcare, they promise universal coverage but ration care or have extremely long waiting lists for treatment, along with other barrieres. Also, with universal healthcare, I believe that the overall value of care would go down, along with decreased advancement in technology. This type of universal healthcare, ran by the government, is not ideal in anyway.
Another point I would like to point out is that the slogan "people always want what they don't have" stands true; for, countries that have universal healthcare are actually moving towards a system that looks more like ours, while we are moving towards one that is like theirs. So, I believe that we should not try to move to have complete universal healthcare, but to make it where we are in more control and where there could be more consumer incentives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)