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.