Welfare and Drug Testing Go Hand in Hand

The article “Mandatory Drug Testing To Receive Welfare Benefits” written by Hit or Miss is spot on with my views and opinions behind welfare benefits. I’m glad you posted this topic, you wrote the article very well and have pointed out some validated positions. Welfare is a great system for those who truly need it and want it only as a temporary stepping stone until those people are able to get back on their feet and on the right track. However, welfare itself is controversial. I found this article to be interesting because it is a thought that has crossed my mind from time to time as to the type of regulation the welfare system undergoes. Taxpayers are contributing to a system with little regulation so it certainly raises questions as to why am I responsible for someone who is abusing the system potentially? I’m certain that there are quite a few individuals who abuse the system and/or are on drugs. As stated by Hit or Miss, many people agree with the drug test screening and compare this notion to taking a drug test to gain and maintain employment, then why should welfare recipients be any different. Drug testing will highlight recipients who are wasting taxpayer’s money. I don’t believe that it’s unconstitutional to drug test if the welfare recipient is abusing the program and benefits. Those people need to be rehabilitated and if drug testing is required for employment, again what makes this any different? This type of filtering would create a better living situation and set better examples for kids if they are involved. As stated by Hit or Miss, for those who fail a drug test and become ineligible for assistance, their family will suffer without the help. The blame goes to the parent. Removing a person from receiving benefits because they are using the program to support a bad habit will help reduce the costs to the taxpayers and truly provide the benefits to those who need it. This is a great solution to overlooked area.

The War on School Immigration

The article “House passes immigration bill to keep science and technology students in U.S.” written by Gregory Wallace and Deirdre Walsh states that the US House approved the Republican backed immigration legislation on Friday that previously had fallen short. The Stem Jobs Act would allow up to 55,000 visas to non-citizens who completed some advanced degrees at major US universities. The Republicans are viewing this passed bill as a plus for the economy. As stated by the House Majority Leader Eric Cantor echoes that the passed bill will grant the individuals to receive a green card permitting they obtain a diploma and thus resulting in them staying in the country to begin careers to create jobs as opposed to being forced to leave the US and go back to their native home countries and actually compete against us. Another Republican that backs this thought is Lamar Smith who advises that many of the top students come to the US to receive advanced degrees. With this observation, the economy can be boosted and create jobs by allowing US employers to hire foreign graduates from US universities. The Obama administration opposes this measure and thought of concentration. I too agree with this. The bill does not address broader immigration issues and is view by Democrats as an attempt to appeal to non-white voters, who largely sided with Obama over GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Election Day. The focus should be on educating our current “students” and providing programs that encourage and entice these students to go for advanced degrees. I believe that we should provide programs that encourage our own natural born citizens to be the job creators or inventors that stimulate job growth. I’m a firm believer that we are all human and should all work together but that is nothing but a pipe dream that will never manifest.

Government Control Over the Internet? Hell No!

The web article: InternetCensorship: How heavy a hand should the government play? written by CptloTX is composed very well, is right on point with my views about government regulation and especially toward internet regulation. Cptlotx advises that the internet needs to be “self” regulated and that we as people have the freedom of choice to choose our own level of censorship. I agree with this statement. We have the rights the rights to choose what what want to use the internet for. Full governmental regulation over the internet would be very costly, time consuming and a long battle to gain full control. Cptlotx advises that the government should pursue those who commit fraudulent crimes and activities as individual cases and situations. I agree with this statement. The government already exercises this action. He also advises that there are already buffers in place such as internet filters that are designed to safeguard people from suspicious content and materials. These types of internet securities are highly sufficient, practical and are the best plan of attack to keep the internet regulated “internally” and not by the government. This magnifies Cptlotxs statement that with these type of buffers, the government is not “required or needed” to take full control of the internet. This post is filled with detailed data to inform the reader and it presents the message very clear and concise.

It's The Taxes.

This is an old and tiresome discussion topic however it never seems to be removed from conversation. I have been following the tax topics closely throughout this presidential debate and honestly, I’m not sure what to think at this point. At the beginning of 2013, the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire. The Obama care law is set to raise tax rates on the wealthy by an additional 3.8 percent. Obama and others in Congress argue that these higher tax rates are justifiable because of the growing argument that the wealthy don’t pay their fair share of taxes. Unless something is done to spread the burden more equitably, the argument is, society will become more unfair and the economy more unsustainable with each passing year. So what really needs to take place is to become fairer. The tax code needs to tax the rich more heavily while maintaining a healthy and steady trend with the middle class and poor that are fair and sustainable. One of Obama’s latest budget proposals raises 1.7 trillion in taxes over the next decade by increasing tax rates for the wealthiest Americans as well as for the middle class. The result of this would be much of those people’s wealth, which might otherwise go toward creating jobs, would end up sitting in unproductive tax shelters. I say for this reason, simply creating high tax rates are the worst way to redistribute income to the poor and the middle class. Creating fair tax codes and lowering tax rates can make the tax burden fairer. This trend started in the early 60s and continued into Bush’s presidency. This trend showed growth of tax receipts from 517 billion to 1.3 trillion. Along with fairness and this trend, creates opportunity, growth and jobs because the money freed up for consumption and investment has a multiplier effect. In closing, taxing high-income individuals can and has increased equality, but there is little evidence to suggest that this is the sole solution that will result in increased economic stability for the poor and middle class. Taxes distributed fairly and accordingly amongst all the classes will create stability and equality.

Romney’s Lies

The article written by author Robert Parry, who is the founder of consortiumnews.com and one of the reporters that helped expose the Iran-Contra scandal for the AP in the mid-1980s, discusses the crafty way that Mitt Romney twists the words of truth to make Obama appear as if he has not completed any of the major items that brought him to become President. The article “Mitt Romney Lies to the World” brings forth to light that Mitt Romney is an inveterate liar. This article is purely opinion based and even though it has been criticized by both sides of the political parties, I do agree with his view on how Mitt Romney delivers his messages. This article is geared toward political voters of both parties to help them make a better informed decision for the upcoming election.

The author argues that Mitt Romney has a tendency to lie on minor stuff as well as big issues. An example to back his claim and idea: “Mitt Romney claimed that President Barack Obama “has not signed one new free trade agreement in the past four years” though Obama secured passage of agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama and signed them in October 2011. Romney apologists suggest that the Republican presidential nominee was hanging his truthiness on the word “new” since negotiations on the agreements began late in George W. Bush’s presidency. But the work was completed by Obama and he pushed the deals through Congress despite resistance from some of his own supporters in labor unions.” The author is demonstrating that Mitt Romney twists the words to give the impression that Obama has accomplished “nothing” during his presidency but simply stating the opposite.  

This particular pattern of lies has shown to continue into the general election campaigns. Mitt Romney tells vibrant stories while on the campaign trail and during last Wednesday’s presidential debate. Another backing to this accusation is that he claimed his health-care plan covered people with pre-existing conditions when it doesn’t. As I mentioned above, I do agree with the author here. All politicians are guilty of this practice but nobody does it better than Mitt Romney and it can be clearly seen.

Obama's Flat Performance

The article “Debate Praise for Romney as Obama is Faulted as Flat” is show casing that Obama provided a lackluster debate against Mitt Romney. The author, Michael D. Shear, is the chief writer for The Caucus, the political blog for The New York Times. He is advising political followers of both parties, who are his target audience, that Mitt Romney out performed Barack Obama in his first ever general election debate. The author discusses his opinion that most political followers were surprised that Mitt Romney performed as well as he did. Supporting evidence of his theory is echoed by Stephen F. Hayes of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine. He wrote after the debate “In a thoroughly dominating performance, Romney bested Barack Obama in both tone and substance,” “Obama often found himself at the end of a verbal cul-de-sac, seemingly unaware of how he’d ended up there.” Mitt Romney attacked Barack Obama on his lack of following through with his promises that lead to his presidential election in 2008. Mitt Romney focused on the raising prices and taxes that Obama’s administration has allowed. In my opinion, I agree with the author here. I do believe that Mitt Romney picked apart Barack Obama’s debate. Mitt Romney found holes in Obama’s policies and turned the nations focus toward lowering taxes and helping the middle class. Mitt Romney is trailing in the campaign polls and this debate helped close the gap however it didn’t change the overall lead in Mitt Romney’s favor.

"Occupy"

The article written by William Rivers Pitt “I will Occupy” is articulating an idea and notion that change is needed in this country and world. According to William, occupy was and is the movement that is creating this ever so desperately needed change. 

                Occupy is the sole creator of the 99% vs. 1%. He believes that the lasting effects of occupy still remains. In reading this article, I didn’t realize that occupy completed much, however I underestimated the effects. He cleverly points out that ideas never die and because this idea is not dead, lives on across America and all across the world. Occupy continuously fights greed, violence and the powerful. The purpose that created occupy continues to fight today against those who destroy our world for the measly profit motive. William points out that occupy is about the people and that individual power creates change.

                This is a great article to review that pinpoints the entire idealism behind occupy, its purpose, effects and why change is needed. Change is needed and the history written about our generation needs to reflect something much better than what is displayed today.