Voting for the Young Generation

I agree with the sentiment reflected in the blog: http://governmentbyasia.blogspot.com/ . In the process of a major election the very first thing that most candidates do is to try to appeal to the younger generation. Some candidates will meet with various music entertainers or movie stars to get their votes. Once a bond is made with the candidate and the entertainer they began to work on the campaign trail together to help pursue the younger generation to vote. Some candidates feel that by forming a bond with a famous socialite it will help their chances in getting more votes from the young generation. To some degree it has worked. For instance, during Senator John Kerry’s presidential campaign he made public appearances with movie stars Matt Damon and Ben Affleck. Some of the young generation do not have voting as their top agendas during the voting season. The lack of voting among the younger generation is a major problem. To some voting may have never been a priority to them nor will it ever be. To some young people voting is a lose, lose situation. In their minds they believe that both candidates are the same and they don’t care what the outcome is. Others may believe that voting will not make the economy any better and their vote won’t affect the outcome either way.

Voting is a civic duty that we all have and we should take those duties seriously. What a lot of people do not realize is by voting we have the opportunity to do something great for our nation rather than just waiting to see what happens. Going out and voting is not a difficult thing to do if you really care about the direction our economy is going. Even though voting has increased among younger voters, it is nowhere near where it should be. Voting is a privilege and many people take that privilege for granted.

Balance of Power

There are laws in every nation, and because of those laws it is very important that those laws are heard and enforced. As citizens of the United States the responsibility falls upon our society to choose people to lead our government. Within the political world it is the priority of the government to deliver what the people need. The government must be able to deliver for the people and preserve the morals of this great nation. There are several areas in which government has the responsibility to see that justice is served. Those areas are the courts, congress, and the Presidency. The three branches of government each play their own important role in our economy. The legislative branch serves a level of government through congress such as the Senate and the House of Representatives. The executive branch serves in the areas such as the Presidency. The judicial branch serves in the areas of the Supreme Courts. Government must be able to recognize when change is needed and to make sure that our economy is preserved and protected. The protection of our rights is the major concern that our government must insure does not suffer. During the most difficult times that our nation will face, the responsibility of our government that must make sure that our nation advances in a positive direction. Some issues such as finance, debit and war are just a few examples of what the powers of government have to face. War for instance is among one of the most important issues that congress would have to purpose during a time of urgency such as in September 11, 2001. Although some may view government as a threat to the economy, others may view it as well balanced structure that preserves peace and stability.

Commentary

I agree with my classmate's blog http://seungchoi.blogspot.com/2009/07/being-involved-too-much.html . Even though I do not condone President Obama's statement that the police "acted stupidly", I do believe that he does need to realize his position as President of the United States. Everything that President Obama does will be scrutinized, especially by the media. The arrest of Henry Gates Jr. obviously was clearly an instance in which media would turn nothing into something. I also believe that Obama may be getting involved in issues that should be otherwise left alone and do not require presidential intercession.

Who is to Blame for the Housing Crisis

It is no secret that our country's economy is in dire straits. As we look at around us, job losses, massive layoffs, retirement and savings diminished, we ask ourselves "How did we get here?". Thomas Sowell delves into this matter in his recent book "The Housing Boom and Bust". Sowell uses knowledge, history, and economics to examine how exactly the housing market crumbled. Sowell posits that the downfall began with Washington politics. He goes on to say that there were several factors leading to the crisis and that politicians are now looking to deflect the blame to anyone other than themselves. Questionable lending during the housing boom created situations where people bought homes they realistically could not afford. Mortgage companies became less concerned about the loan standards from quality buyers and increasingly concerned with building houses for people regardless of whether or not they could afford them.

The crisis our country now faces and the impending large financial bailouts occuring in both the housing and auto markets is one that I feel our country will eventually overcome. After all this is not the first economic crisis our country has endured. However, many people feel strongly that our government led us into the current crisis by supporting and driving the loosening of mortgage loan requirements. Sowell states in his book that politicians pushed lower loan requirements in order to make homes more affordable for more people. Basic economic sense dictates that people purchasing homes they simply cannot afford will lead to economic downfall, however government pushed forward until the bottom fell out from the housing market. What we have learned is that mortgage requirements are put into place for a reason and in doing so the buyer, the lending companies, and home builders are protected. Affordable housing is something our economy is in desparate need of right now, however until government ceases to push for less strict lending policies it will be a long road to recovery.

"A Trigger Lock for Gun Control"

In the Christian Science Monitor Editorial Board's commentary, the collaborative opinion regarding the issue of gun control is that the senate should pass stricter gun control laws, opposing the NRA's fight to expand conceal and carry laws. Given that the audience of this particular site is most likely made up of the conservative right, it seems to me to be a bit "left" of the assumed readership.

Currently each state has its own laws regarding gun control with some states being stricter than others. Some states require little more than a background check while others wisely require background checks in addition to training and safety courses, ruling out those who have previously been in trouble with the law.

While the authors make vaild points, their bottom line is that there should be more gun control, however they do not address the fact that bad people will continue to do bad things regardless of how accessible guns are or are not. Nor do they address the fact that gun control laws really only make it more difficult for law abiding citizens who simply enjoy hunting or target shooting as a form of recreational activity to obtain firearms. After all, these are the people who obey laws and will go through all necessary protocols in purchasing a firearm. It is those who are wishing to commit crimes that we should worry about and these individuals will not let laws prevent them from obtaining desired weapons.

Obviously, the authors are credible journalists writing for a national publication, however I do not personally feel that they took into account all sides of this hot topic. Undoubtedly with a Democratic president in office gun control will again increase, however whether or not this is the true answer to our nation's crime problem remains to be seen.




http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0727/p08s01-comv.html

In Defense of Student Loans

One of the priorities that President Obama has focused on recently is higher education. In these times of economic downfall, this provides an especially challenging proposition: how do we finance this? Patrick Fleenor, chief economist of the Tax Foundation, agrees that higher education should be an opportunity available to all, however he does not agree with President Obama's American Opportunity Tax Credit and plans to increasing college grants in order to attain this lofty goal. Fleenor argues that the true scandal in regards to higher education is not what people pay, but rather what they don't pay. While degrees can result in some hefty student loans that must be paid off, it is also true that those individuals with college educations will earn 60% higher incomes than those with high school diplomas. Fleenor goes on to state that higher education subsidies are paid for with tax dollars obtained from people who didn't go to college. In essence low-moderate income indivduals without a college degree are forced to subsidize an educational process that will help others to have higher incomes.

While Fleenor certainly makes some vaild points, I must respectfuly disagree with him. Higher education should be available to all those who want to earn a degree. However this is a choice each individual makes for themselves. Some opt not to go to college for a variety of reasons and there are even those who earn substantial incomes without a college degree. Potential college students should not be held back simply because there are those who chose not to go to college. College education is an investment, not just for the individual but for the collective whole. How many doctors, teachers and scientists are now making positive gains in our county because of student loans? The term "pay if forward" is perhaps applicable here. In a country where we pay taxes to help provide medical care and food to those in need, why should education be any different?


http://www/csmonitor.com/2009/0717/p09s02-coop.html

http://http://www.csmonitor.com/

Mexico has been marked by several problems within the past few years. However, the major problems that stand out above the others are the drug wars involving the major drug cartels. This article describes the violence that comes hand in hand with the drug wars. The war between the drug cartels and the Mexican authorities are becoming extremely violent as they now begin targeting off duty authorities. In the state of Michoacan, Mexico there has been brutal attacts on authories that has left many people dead. Since 2006 Mexican President Felipe Calderon has lead an anti drug offense against organized crime and does not intend to let up on resistence. This article's depiction of the brutal consequences of the drug war is especially relevant to those of us living in Texas due to our proximity to the violence and the fact that it could possibly spill over to our side of the border.