Democrates try to get the seniors!

Democrats came up with a last minute pitch before the election to give those with Social Security a 250 dollar bonus to make ends meet as the cost of living goes up. This check would be given out to 58 million people. A problem with this proposal is figuring out how this 13 billion dollar cost is going to be paid for. Obama hasn’t offered any suggestions as to where the money is coming from, and the Senate rejected this pitch because they thought it would just add 13 billion dollars to the 12 trillion dollar federal debt.

I think this is the Democrats way of trying to survive the election. In a way, Democrats are bribing the seniors and others with social security to vote Democratic because they will magically give 58 million people 250 dollars each. Democrats have no way of paying for this proposal and it is just going to add billions of dollars to our trillion dollar debt; that is something that will hurt the U.S. rather than help it. Democrats just started putting effort into this proposal now which shows that they aren’t really trying to find a solution for social security, but they are just creating a temporary “quick fix” that will get seniors on board with the Democratic Party. In the long run, 250 dollars will help for a months time at max, and then seniors on social security will just be back to struggling.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39736338/ns/politics-decision_2010/

Issue #1 Matthew Pappenfus

The Commander in Chief of the U.S. has the right given to him by the constitution to direct the U.S. Armed Forces, on the other hand, Congress has the right to approve or deny the way the President spends money when it comes to war and any other federal spending. This way the people can elect those that represent what they believe and then congress can monitor federal spending in a way that makes the people happy. The taxes that the general public has to pay is the reason the government has money to spend so they should have a right to control where it goes. The war in Iraq caused the United States' spending to skyrocket. The budget deficit reached $412 billion in 2004 which was an all-time high.The other point of view is that the people originally elected the president and the president being the Commander in Chief should have the right to spend money on war in whichever way he thinks is best without having to worry about congress interfering. The president and congress fighting about how to spend the money when it comes to war will only distract us from the goal and end up losing us the war.

I believe that although we elected the president, congress should still have to monitor his financial spending when it comes to war because that way the American people will still be able to control the government's actions. We vote for the people inside congress, so if congress have some control, it is more the people voice than his. It is for us the people, who run the goverment. Like John Locke believed, the people have the right by the constitution to elect those that share similar beliefs, but we also have the right to remove those same people from government if we do not like what they are doing. The money paying for the war is coming from the people which makes it their business too. Scott Sipprelle, a republican running for a seat in the house in New Jersey agrees that more needs to be done to control how the tax payers dollars are spent. Here is the article explaining his plan for this to become a reality.

Issue #2: What We Can Afford

http://heatherseventblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/issue-2-spending-what-we-can-afford.html
Issue #3: Social Security

http://theresasocial.blogspot.com/2010/10/issue-3-social-insecurity.html

US warns the Americans in Europe of possible Terrorist Attacks

Today, there was a State Department travel alert warning Americans living or traveling in Europe of potential terrorist threats. Americans are urged to "take every precaution to be aware of their surroundings and to adopt appropriate safety measures to protect themselves when traveling." It is said that "the potential for terrorists to attack public transportation systems and other tourist infrastructure," is high. While the warning seems pretty scary, it is not a formal travel warning, meaning it does not restrict travel. The warning is due to current information saying that al-Qaida continues to plan terrorist attacks. U.S. and Europeans security experts have been worried for days that attacks in public places with assault weapons were/are being planned. Also, Osama bin Laden may be behind the terror plots according to U.S. intelligence officials. However, as of right now, many Europeans and members of the Obama administration view the travel alert as an overreaction.

If I was traveling to Europe, I think I would want to know if top officials were concerned of there being terrorist attacks. Then again, if there really wasn't an extreme high risk, when I was in Europe I wouldn't want to be limiting myself to not getting the full experience because I was too worried of there being a terrorist attack. However, I do think it's pretty pathetic that we have to worry about such things as terrorist attacks. I have absolutely no comprehension on why people would want to kill others and why people do the crazy and horrible stuff they do. I'm also not too sure about the fact that Osama bin Laden might be behind the planned attacks... we have been chasing him for so long now, and to not find him, and for him to still be alive after so many years. I don't know... I really don't know what to think of that. In my lifetime I would love to see a world where if you want to go travel the world, you can, and you can with no worries of absolutely anything. You won't have to worry about your things getting stolen, or people not being kind, or of terrorist attacks... you can just enjoy what the world has to offer. I know that's probably a fantasy, but just think about it. Wouldn't that be great?

Obama getting taken over by Palin

Both became nationally recognized as Washington outsiders with limited governmental experience. Obama was an Illinois state senator when he gave his 2004 convention speech, and he was elected to the U.S. Senate later that year. Palin had served less than two years as Alaska's governor before running with John McCain in 2008. Prior to that she'd been mayor of Wasilla for six years.
I don't think that Palin will ever be the person that Obama is becasue she doesn't have the intelligance that he does and she doesn't know enough about government to become president. Palin believes that she would be the best president ever but everybody in the states knows that she wouldn't be because she would take to much control of her power and run this struggling country into another depression.