"Shut it Down?" Commentary

I agree with the your overall opinion, but I think the information this site makes public to anyone who cares to look at it puts in danger more than just the reputation of those politicians who are mentioned in its articles. It can be said that this is just an excuse for those politicians to bring the site down, but I believe in some cases our right to freedom of speech should be somewhat limited, especially in cases in which we can put others in harm, not to mention the security of our nation.

"Shut it Down?" - As American as Apple Pie

Here comes the Tax Cut train

I'll just start this off with a long, drawn out 'sigh'. To be perfectly honest I had no idea Bush had even passed a tax cut, but to extend it leads me to think that maybe President Obama is just simply fishing for economic recovery. Not to insinuate that I know a substantial amount about how the economy works, but it seems to me that by extending the tax cuts to the wealthy Americans does nothing to help the economy, especially if it ads 900 BILLION to the already staggering 13 Trillion National Debt. 

Obama Seeks to Deflect Anger in Party Over Tax Deal


It seems to me that something must be going horribly wrong for a Democratic President to ask for support from an opposing Republican party to pass this deal, which comes as no surprise, seeing as the late Republican president Bush was the one who introduced the tax cut. Weird? I don't think so. My question remains: Why is Obama going to the Republican party for help? Well, it's not rocket science, I think most of us know by now that at least some of the the Democratic party thinks that the president is not going in the right direction, and the people have picked up on this. Proof of that has come from the mid-term elections.

Bush-Era Tax Cuts

The reasoning for the tax breaks is, yet again, that it will "trickle down" to the working class, and in return help the economy, something I'm a bit hesitant to swallow just yet. But as with most things, there are two sides to the story, and I don't pretend to know enough about the economy to say how it will turn out, but to me it seems counter-productive to lower taxes for the wealthy and millionaires who have the income to pay them, while increasing our already bloated national debt. And I'm not neglecting the fact that these cuts will keep the tax of the middle class low as well.


But I digress, maybe we should leave it to the brain-heads in Capital Hill to tell us what's better for us in the long run...


...I don't think so.

"The Economy And Elections" Commentary

"The Economy And Elections" highlights some points that I tend to agree with. I believe that not just the Democrats, but our whole government just sort of turned a blind eye to our economy because they had too high hopes that the stimulus had worked. What you bring up is a good point, and I'd like to think that the people running this country know what they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on, money that we will eventually end up paying ourselves, and you bring up a good question.... will more government spending help our economy or hurt it? A tough question considering not even experts can agree on this matter, and certainly one weighing heavily on our President.

Don't Ask Don't Tell

Should the U.S. Government repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell? Today anyone is allowed to enlist in the military as long as they don't reveal their sexual orientation. It's no secret that today some people still have issues with homosexuals and that's no exception inside the military, so as to avoid conflict between the two, the military asks you just to not say. Why? because sexual orientation is not a concern of the military, any kind of sexual behavior shouldn't be performed or even mentioned while on duty because it serves no purpose other than to distract you from the task at hand.

To sum it up this is what the military says of the issue and as far as I know this is the only reason why Don't Ask Don't Tell is in effect today. Is it Unconstitutional? According to Virginia Phillips, a federal judge, it is, declaring that it violates the First and Fifth Amendments. What the military fears and their main argument against repealing DADT is that it will bring unwanted conflict amongst enlisted soldiers, something that can lead to insubordination or turmoil amongst military units. For example: Soldiers writing profanities on another soldiers door who was suspected of being a homosexual (something that has happened before).

In my opinion DADT should be repealed, Why? Just because some people today still have problems adapting to a changing society (not accepting gays) doesn't mean homosexuals should be punished. I believe they should be able to serve freely of their sexual orientations, and those that still have issues with a changing society should be the ones discharged, not the other way around.

Enlisted men and woman caught performing homosexual acts, even outside of military installations are discharged from the military.

When in a battle-zone whether you're gay or straight shouldn't even be in the mind of anyone holding a rifle and standing shoulder-to-shoulder with fellow soldiers, but to be discharged for openly being who you are outside of a military installation is just wrong.

The Republican Come-back?

In The Looming Democratic Crack-up Hugh Hewitt states some facts of why he thinks the Democrats will certainly loose the upcoming elections. Is he right? Most likely, and I tend to agree. The Democrats have been dodging bullets and drawing the attention to other issues, according to Hewitt. He makes it very clear that this is one of the main reasons why the voters will look to the Republicans for an answer. Hewitt gives us the articles and other sources to support what he is saying, and they don't let you down. He argues that the Democrats are jut abandoning the President. Most of the evidence he provides is to show you exactly this, that the Democrats are waving attention away from the programs they supported themselves. Is it because they think they're not doing a good job in the recovery of the economy? From the way Hewitt writes this article it seems so. He's basing his assumption almost solely on this, and although that might seem reckless, it seems strong enough argument;  "all one party wants to talk about what the president, Pelosi and Reid have done these past two years. The other party wants to talk about anything except that record." As far as the audience, well it should be pretty obvious that it's anyone that is in favor of the Republicans. Anyone who wants their party to win will find this article interesting and will most likely agree with it.

Drink and Smoke - Help our Economy

Catherine Rampell writes about "Sin Taxes" in her article Sin, The Hot New Government Revenue Strategy, taxes which impose extra fees "...on companies that pollute the environment or create excess social costs, called negative externalities, through business practices."

She argues that yes, even though these taxes do raise money for a government or state with financial problems, it is "two-pronged", meaning that if the tax is too effective in stopping -for example- smoking cigarettes -which everyone can agree produces ill effects- most people will in turn just stop smoking, therefore making the tax useless since no one is buying the product that has been taxed. I agree with this comments and the reasons are logical, but it's just common sense. Sin Taxes are a much better option than an out-right ban on the product (much like prohibition, and we all know how that turned out) but it has to be applied with discretion.

An argument like this has a large target audience, just because of the two things being talked about, Taxes and mainly smoking. Anyone interested in what they're government is charging them taxes on is most likely a tax-payer themselves, and the other audience would be the smokers and/or drinkers. In terms of age anyone smoking (legally anyway) is 17 or older and 21 for drinking, from these ages on-ward there's really no limit to who might be interested in this subject.

As far as credibility she links a few sources to other articles of the same topic which in turn have more evidence to prove what they're discussing. While "sin taxes" might not work for every instance -such as taxes on "fat foods"- it most likely will work in increasing revenue for the state in which it is enacted. Her arguments stands, these taxes do work, when applied discretely, meaning don't over-tax cigarettes and make people stop smoking, it'll kill the whole purpose of the tax.

Arizone On Fire

We've all heard this since we where in our Middle School history classes: The Melting Pot. Without a doubt the United States of America is a mish mash of cultures, religions and races, may that be a good thing or a bad thing it does it really justify the passing of Arizona's sb1070 Immigration law? Is a law that grants our law enforcement the right to pull you over and ask for papers simply because of the color of your skin constitutional? This article breaks down a very simple, jet controversial law. We need to review this legislation and ponder what it is saying about our country. Is this something that can lead to unwanted tension between our neighbor, more tension than there already is? This law will be one for the history books, but will it be for good, or bad reasons?

Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070