“What is the essence of America? Finding and maintaining that perfect, delicate balance between freedom ‘to’ and freedom ‘from.’” ~Marilyn vos Savant, in Parade
Living and growing up in the United States of America, I have been cultivated to think a certain way; by my peers, my elders, and my environment. I love my country and I take pride in what we have accomplished and what we stand for. This does not, however, mean that I believe that everything we do, as a nation, is necessarily “right.” But something that stood out more to me, throughout these past months, was a sort of “state of mind” feeling that often overwhelms a country and sways it one way or the other. Social networking sites, I believe, have the ability to greatly impact the United States of America, not only from the Atlantic to the Pacific, but also in our overseas relations, and our opinions and thoughts as US citizens.
In the days of British rule and discontent within the United States of America, those with discontent sought power in numbers by holding mass meetings in towns and pubs throughout the 13 colonies. While the idea is still the same today, most activists or groups of individuals seek power in numbers through social media networks like facebook, MySpace, YouTube, blog sharing sites, and C-Span, a cable network that acts as a public service to provide public access to the political process (Klapper, 2009). These internet sites often house countless articles or opinionated pieces of writing that individuals can view at any time. On most occasions, people do not seek the information to “broaden their viewpoints” and in fact search for articles that agree with their views or causes. When these ideas are shared within social-networking sites, people are not only influenced in large numbers, but are often swayed in a short matter of time, as communication has become extraordinarily fast.
Although social networking is available to everyone, it is usually the younger generation that fully exploits it. These are the adults who were raised with internet readily at their hands. For the 2008 presidential election, more than a quarter of registered voters between the ages of 18 and 30 said they obtained information regarding the election through social-networking sites. Two days before the election, President Obama had more than 2 million supporters on facebook versus McCain’s 600,000 (Anonymous, Are Social Networks good for our Society?). President Obama also received 70% of first-time voters’ votes. President Obama’s campaign called for a somewhat different approach to politics, at least one that was different than the previous 8 years. His campaign held him up on a pedestal to improve society and make everything great- if it wasn’t for the feasibility of each plan. The younger crowd, however, does not see that; “Each new generation is incrementally ignorant of the past and the great causes that inflamed the masses.” (Anonymous, Will Idealistic Youth Save the World?, 2009). The younger crowd does lean towards idealism, which is found pre-dominantly throughout Obama’s campaign and presidency, and through social networking sites, they are able to seek a great number of individuals either alike, or moldable.
With social networking sites, Americans have begun to see a change in the operations of the rest of the world much quicker than before. In Iran, a country that has been progressively distinguishing itself from the rest of its Middle-Eastern neighbors, internet communication is expanding rapidly and the government is suffering. The greater access to the digital world poses a serious threat to authoritarian regime in Iran; the government is almost forced to crack down. What technology means for a country like Iran is hard to say. If Iranians had full access to the internet without censorship, they would be given a great freedom, however, this is not the case, and the internet is still somewhat censored (Forgione, 2010).
Social networking sites do have significant pros and cons. In 2009, during the protests on the Iranian election, protestors used Twitter to circumvent government control over phones and the media. Social networking is also known to connect family and friends and to improve relationships. Social networking does have its flaws though. Sexual predators are also free to roam the web, although MySpace reports that it does not allow sex offenders to maintain a MySpace account (so long as they’re found). The use of social networking sites also has significant impacts on children including personality and brain disorders not limited to the inability to hold a real conversation, limited attention spans, the need for instant gratification, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and self-centered personalities (Anonymous, Are Social Networks good for our Society?).
So what does this mean for our government? Social networking sites are used to quickly communicate one on one or in large groups. For a positive effect, this could mean that the government could react quickly to overseas threats, with much of the nation’s opinions readily at hand. As a US citizen in this generation, having an access to social networking sites could be a great way to share ideas and speak out against topics that you disagree with. With the anonymity and security that you receive from social networking sites, you can write almost any thought that you might have, which is something that politicians and the US government have not necessarily heard of in the past. In pubs, things worked differently; those who shared their opinions were well known. In conclusion, the media has greatly influenced the United States of America, from newspapers to today’s broadcasted news. Social networking sites have the potential to add a tremendous amount of power to the media, and how it influences the government and the country is only something that time can tell.
Works Cited
Anonymous. (n.d.). Are Social Networks good for our Society? Retrieved from Social Netoworking Pros and Cons: http://socialnetworking.procon.org/
Anonymous. (1998, March 10). How Americans View the Government. Retrieved from The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press: http://people-press.org/report/95/how-americans-view-government
Anonymous. (2009, May 9). Will Idealistic Youth Save the World? Retrieved from City-Data: http://www.city-data.com/forum/great-debates/644108-will-idealistic-youth-save-world.html
Forgione, M. (2010, May 3). Blog Spot. Retrieved from Michael Forgione's Weblogs for students, faculty, and staff: http://blogs.umb.edu/michaelforgione001/2010/05/03/the-pros-and-cons-of-technology-the-internet-and-its-social-and-cultural-revolution/
Klapper, E. (2009, March 17). Facebook Pages and Government: Best Practices. Retrieved from Social Government: http://www.socialgovernment.com/2009/03/17/facebook-pages-and-government-best-practices/
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
The Essence of America and Social Networking
“What is the essence of America? Finding and maintaining that perfect, delicate balance between freedom ‘to’ and freedom ‘from.’” ~Marilyn vos Savant, in Parade
Living and growing up in the United States of America, I have been cultivated to think a certain way; by my peers, my elders, and my environment. I love my country and I take pride in what we have accomplished and what we stand for. This does not, however, mean that I believe that everything we do, as a nation, is necessarily “right.” But something that stood out more to me, throughout these past months, was a sort of “state of mind” feeling that often overwhelms a country and sways it one way or the other.
In the days of British rule and discontent within the United States of America, those with discontent sought power in numbers by holding mass meetings in towns and pubs throughout the 13 colonies. While the idea is still the same today, most activists or groups of individuals seek power in numbers through social media networks like Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, blog sharing sites, and C-Span, a cable network that acts as a public service to provide public access to the political process (Klapper, 2009). These internet sites often house countless articles or opinionated pieces of writing that individuals can view at any time. On most occasions, people do not seek the information to “broaden their viewpoints” and in fact search for articles that agree with their views or causes. When these ideas are shared within social-networking sites, people are not only influenced in large numbers, but are often swayed in a short matter of time, as communication has become extraordinarily fast.
Although social networking is available to everyone, it is usually the younger generation that fully exploits it. These are the adults who were raised with internet readily at their hands. For the 2008 presidential election, more than a quarter of registered voters between the ages of 18 and 30 said they obtained information regarding the election through social-networking sites. Two days before the election, Obama had more than 2 million supporters on Facebook versus McCain’s 600,000 (Anonymous, Are Social Networks good for our Society?). Obama also received roughly 70% of the votes from first time voters. Obama’s campaign called for a somewhat different approach to politics, at least one that was different than the previous 8 years. His campaign held him up on a pedestal to improve society and make everything great- if it wasn’t for the feasibility of each plan. The younger crowd, however, does not see that; “Each new generation is incrementally ignorant of the past and the great causes that inflamed the masses.” (Anonymous, Will Idealistic Youth Save the World?, 2009). The younger crowd does lean towards idealism, which is found pre-dominantly throughout Obama’s campaign and presidency, and through social networking sites, they are able to seek a great number of individuals either alike, or moldable.
Because we are not only connected within our borders much more readily, Americans have begun to see a change in the operations of the rest of the world. In Iran, a country that has been progressively distinguishing itself from the rest of its Middle-Eastern neighbors, internet communication is expanding rapidly and the government is suffering. The greater access to the digital world poses a serious threat to authoritarian regime in Iran; the government is almost forced to crack down. What technology means for a country like Iran is hard to say. If Iranians had full access to the internet without censorship, they would be given a great freedom, however, this is not the case, and the internet is still somewhat censored (Forgione, 2010).
So what does this mean for our society? Social networking sites do have significant pros and cons. In 2009, during the protests on the Iranian election, protestors used Twitter to circumvent government control over phones and the media. Social networking is also known to connect family and friends and to improve relationships. Social networking does have its flaws though. Sexual predators are also free to roam the web, although MySpace reports that it does not allow sex offenders to maintain a MySpace account (so long as they’re found). The use of social networking sites also has significant impacts on children including personality and brain disorders not limited to the inability to hold a real conversation, limited attention spans, the need for instant gratification, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and self-centered personalities (Anonymous, Are Social Networks good for our Society?).
Works Cited
Anonymous. (n.d.). Are Social Networks good for our Society? Retrieved from Social Netoworking Pros and Cons: http://socialnetworking.procon.org/
Anonymous. (1998, March 10). How Americans View the Government. Retrieved from The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press: http://people-press.org/report/95/how-americans-view-government
Anonymous. (2009, May 9). Will Idealistic Youth Save the World? Retrieved from City-Data: http://www.city-data.com/forum/great-debates/644108-will-idealistic-youth-save-world.html
Forgione, M. (2010, May 3). Blog Spot. Retrieved from Michael Forgione's Weblogs for students, faculty, and staff: http://blogs.umb.edu/michaelforgione001/2010/05/03/the-pros-and-cons-of-technology-the-internet-and-its-social-and-cultural-revolution/
Klapper, E. (2009, March 17). Facebook Pages and Government: Best Practices. Retrieved from Social Government: http://www.socialgovernment.com/2009/03/17/facebook-pages-and-government-best-practices/
Living and growing up in the United States of America, I have been cultivated to think a certain way; by my peers, my elders, and my environment. I love my country and I take pride in what we have accomplished and what we stand for. This does not, however, mean that I believe that everything we do, as a nation, is necessarily “right.” But something that stood out more to me, throughout these past months, was a sort of “state of mind” feeling that often overwhelms a country and sways it one way or the other.
In the days of British rule and discontent within the United States of America, those with discontent sought power in numbers by holding mass meetings in towns and pubs throughout the 13 colonies. While the idea is still the same today, most activists or groups of individuals seek power in numbers through social media networks like Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, blog sharing sites, and C-Span, a cable network that acts as a public service to provide public access to the political process (Klapper, 2009). These internet sites often house countless articles or opinionated pieces of writing that individuals can view at any time. On most occasions, people do not seek the information to “broaden their viewpoints” and in fact search for articles that agree with their views or causes. When these ideas are shared within social-networking sites, people are not only influenced in large numbers, but are often swayed in a short matter of time, as communication has become extraordinarily fast.
Although social networking is available to everyone, it is usually the younger generation that fully exploits it. These are the adults who were raised with internet readily at their hands. For the 2008 presidential election, more than a quarter of registered voters between the ages of 18 and 30 said they obtained information regarding the election through social-networking sites. Two days before the election, Obama had more than 2 million supporters on Facebook versus McCain’s 600,000 (Anonymous, Are Social Networks good for our Society?). Obama also received roughly 70% of the votes from first time voters. Obama’s campaign called for a somewhat different approach to politics, at least one that was different than the previous 8 years. His campaign held him up on a pedestal to improve society and make everything great- if it wasn’t for the feasibility of each plan. The younger crowd, however, does not see that; “Each new generation is incrementally ignorant of the past and the great causes that inflamed the masses.” (Anonymous, Will Idealistic Youth Save the World?, 2009). The younger crowd does lean towards idealism, which is found pre-dominantly throughout Obama’s campaign and presidency, and through social networking sites, they are able to seek a great number of individuals either alike, or moldable.
Because we are not only connected within our borders much more readily, Americans have begun to see a change in the operations of the rest of the world. In Iran, a country that has been progressively distinguishing itself from the rest of its Middle-Eastern neighbors, internet communication is expanding rapidly and the government is suffering. The greater access to the digital world poses a serious threat to authoritarian regime in Iran; the government is almost forced to crack down. What technology means for a country like Iran is hard to say. If Iranians had full access to the internet without censorship, they would be given a great freedom, however, this is not the case, and the internet is still somewhat censored (Forgione, 2010).
So what does this mean for our society? Social networking sites do have significant pros and cons. In 2009, during the protests on the Iranian election, protestors used Twitter to circumvent government control over phones and the media. Social networking is also known to connect family and friends and to improve relationships. Social networking does have its flaws though. Sexual predators are also free to roam the web, although MySpace reports that it does not allow sex offenders to maintain a MySpace account (so long as they’re found). The use of social networking sites also has significant impacts on children including personality and brain disorders not limited to the inability to hold a real conversation, limited attention spans, the need for instant gratification, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and self-centered personalities (Anonymous, Are Social Networks good for our Society?).
Works Cited
Anonymous. (n.d.). Are Social Networks good for our Society? Retrieved from Social Netoworking Pros and Cons: http://socialnetworking.procon.org/
Anonymous. (1998, March 10). How Americans View the Government. Retrieved from The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press: http://people-press.org/report/95/how-americans-view-government
Anonymous. (2009, May 9). Will Idealistic Youth Save the World? Retrieved from City-Data: http://www.city-data.com/forum/great-debates/644108-will-idealistic-youth-save-world.html
Forgione, M. (2010, May 3). Blog Spot. Retrieved from Michael Forgione's Weblogs for students, faculty, and staff: http://blogs.umb.edu/michaelforgione001/2010/05/03/the-pros-and-cons-of-technology-the-internet-and-its-social-and-cultural-revolution/
Klapper, E. (2009, March 17). Facebook Pages and Government: Best Practices. Retrieved from Social Government: http://www.socialgovernment.com/2009/03/17/facebook-pages-and-government-best-practices/
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Russian-American Relations on behalf of the Missile Defense Program
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the United States won the Cold War, Russians and Americans have consistently been less than amiable towards one another. Their plans for economic viability are greatly varied, as well as their thoughts over global disputes. While both countries attempt to hit the “reset” button on their relationship, their thoughts on the causes are drastically different, making it a particularly uneasy battle to solve.
In the 1990s, the United States had great hopes that Russia would develop into the Western, free-market, democratic, country that the United States was. This quickly collapsed due to mutual disappointment and unraveled priorities (1). Russia and the United States are entitled to their differences, however, the list is overwhelming on global schematics. The U.S. and Russia have disputes over Iraq and Iran, Ballistic Missile treaties and defense, pipelines and politics, etc. It seems as though Cold War tensions have never really been resolved, and, with Russia’s invasion of Georgia during the presidential campaign of 2008, it seems as though Russia might really be “testing the waters.”
Russia isn’t among the top 3 contenders in the world-wide scale of macro-economics, politics, or military strength. The country is not currently a “hot topic” so to speak in the media, nor did they even manage to surpass the United States in the Medal Count in the 2010 Winter Olympics. The country is not planning a nuclear missile attack on the United States (that we know of) and is not creating deplorable human rights violations within our control. So why then, is a healthy relationship between the United States and Russia so desirable?
With risky involvement in the Middle East, it is vital – for America – to have as many alliances as possible. Experts urged America, in the Huffington Post in March of 2009, to genuinely seek Russia’s cooperation in dealing with Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Members of Congress suggested the participation of Russia in a missile defense system in Europe, which, Russians felt, might also be targeted against their homeland (2). Although President Dmitry Medvedev was quoted that Russia might support sanctions against Iran, not all of Russia’s administration is on board. It’s extraordinarily important for the United States to have Russia “on their side.” With threats all across the Middle East, America and the U.N. need as much support as possible.
The Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, and Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, agree that “Threats, sanctions, and threats of pressure in the current situation [against Iran] would be counter-productive.” It doesn’t help, in addition, that the U.S. media is constantly hounding Moscow’s human rights violations. As far as nuclear relations go with Iran, Russia is very deeply involved, causing yet another setback in reaching an agreement over the European Missile Defense System (3).
References:
1. Bremmer, Ian; Kliment, Alexander. Can the United States Truly Press Reset Button with Russia ? I Have Net Online. http://www.ihavenet.com/Can-United-States-Truly-Press-Reset-Button-With-Russia-Ian-Bremmer-Alexander-Kliment.html
2. Schweid, Barry. Russian-American Relations “Deeply Troubled”. The Huffington Post. 2009. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/16/russian-american-relation_n_175543.html
3. Kucera, Joshua. Despite Obama Concessions Russia Remains Unhelpful on Iran. I Have Net Online. http://www.ihavenet.com/Despite-Obama-Concessions-Russia-Remains-Unhelpful-on-Iran.html
In the 1990s, the United States had great hopes that Russia would develop into the Western, free-market, democratic, country that the United States was. This quickly collapsed due to mutual disappointment and unraveled priorities (1). Russia and the United States are entitled to their differences, however, the list is overwhelming on global schematics. The U.S. and Russia have disputes over Iraq and Iran, Ballistic Missile treaties and defense, pipelines and politics, etc. It seems as though Cold War tensions have never really been resolved, and, with Russia’s invasion of Georgia during the presidential campaign of 2008, it seems as though Russia might really be “testing the waters.”
Russia isn’t among the top 3 contenders in the world-wide scale of macro-economics, politics, or military strength. The country is not currently a “hot topic” so to speak in the media, nor did they even manage to surpass the United States in the Medal Count in the 2010 Winter Olympics. The country is not planning a nuclear missile attack on the United States (that we know of) and is not creating deplorable human rights violations within our control. So why then, is a healthy relationship between the United States and Russia so desirable?
With risky involvement in the Middle East, it is vital – for America – to have as many alliances as possible. Experts urged America, in the Huffington Post in March of 2009, to genuinely seek Russia’s cooperation in dealing with Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Members of Congress suggested the participation of Russia in a missile defense system in Europe, which, Russians felt, might also be targeted against their homeland (2). Although President Dmitry Medvedev was quoted that Russia might support sanctions against Iran, not all of Russia’s administration is on board. It’s extraordinarily important for the United States to have Russia “on their side.” With threats all across the Middle East, America and the U.N. need as much support as possible.
The Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, and Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, agree that “Threats, sanctions, and threats of pressure in the current situation [against Iran] would be counter-productive.” It doesn’t help, in addition, that the U.S. media is constantly hounding Moscow’s human rights violations. As far as nuclear relations go with Iran, Russia is very deeply involved, causing yet another setback in reaching an agreement over the European Missile Defense System (3).
References:
1. Bremmer, Ian; Kliment, Alexander. Can the United States Truly Press Reset Button with Russia ? I Have Net Online. http://www.ihavenet.com/Can-United-States-Truly-Press-Reset-Button-With-Russia-Ian-Bremmer-Alexander-Kliment.html
2. Schweid, Barry. Russian-American Relations “Deeply Troubled”. The Huffington Post. 2009. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/16/russian-american-relation_n_175543.html
3. Kucera, Joshua. Despite Obama Concessions Russia Remains Unhelpful on Iran. I Have Net Online. http://www.ihavenet.com/Despite-Obama-Concessions-Russia-Remains-Unhelpful-on-Iran.html
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Illiteracy in Pakistan: Cause and Effect
It’s an age-old saying that “ignorance is bliss.” In Middle-Eastern countries, however, like Pakistan, illiteracy drives the people near what western civilizations would call insanity; the behavior is far less than peaceful. This is largely due to the fact that a huge portion of the population is illiterate. Why does this matter? People who are illiterate take much longer to understand things than literate people and may also have troubles with organizing information and following a line of reasoning. This can quickly lead to violent protests and general actions (2).
Education in Pakistan has never been revered as “top-notch” and has never made top rankings amongst other countries. In 1970, 21 percent of the adult population of Pakistan was literate. Although the rate is improving, with 36 percent literate in 1992, literacy is measured simply as whether or not the person can write and read his or her own name (1). This makes for huge, insurmountable problems in every aspect of life for the citizens and outsiders of Pakistan. Countries with large numbers of illiterate citizens are relatively undeveloped countries and with illiteracy at a high number, it’s often difficult to “get on track.”
Beyond country development, the inability to read can easily deter a person’s logic and fuel hatred. In 1990, after Iraq invaded Kuwait, U.S. troops rushed to defend the allied country. According to *Dave G, a student at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute of Troy NY, and citizen of Pakistan, many Pakistani people did not understand why the United States was involved at all in the war and believed that the country was trying to overtake Kuwait. This, he said, was due to the fact that they could not comprehend the logic behind the strategic defense, because of illiteracy.
The lack of knowledge fostered hatred towards America, and many protests and acts of violence have ensued. In 2002, a car-bomb exploded outside of the American Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan. Bus bombings, Dave says, are a very common form of protest.
With high violent activity in Pakistan, it’s difficult to understand why action hasn’t been taken to raise literacy and put a stop to the violence. With a cultural limitation in schooling and education, most students do not ask questions on what they’re taught; they simply do what they’re told and stay within the limits. Prohibition of questioning deters any ordinary Pakistani citizen, literate or not, from posing questions to violent protestors. Dealing and living with near constant violence is considered to be the way of life in Pakistan, and no one contests it.
The Pakistani culture is not the only thing prohibiting change. The protection and security systems are also to blame. Pakistani police make a lot less than the average person in Pakistan. Ironically, the income that they make is made up in bribery and pure corruption. So where does a reformer in Pakistan turn to? It’s hard to say, but only time can tell.
*Name change
References:
1. Country Studies. Pakistan. http://countrystudies.us/pakistan/42.htm
2. Target Crime with Literacy. The Problem of Low Literacy in Canada. http://policeabc.ca/literacy-fact-sheets/Page-3.html
3. Country Studies. Pakistan. http://countrystudies.us/pakistan/86.htm
Education in Pakistan has never been revered as “top-notch” and has never made top rankings amongst other countries. In 1970, 21 percent of the adult population of Pakistan was literate. Although the rate is improving, with 36 percent literate in 1992, literacy is measured simply as whether or not the person can write and read his or her own name (1). This makes for huge, insurmountable problems in every aspect of life for the citizens and outsiders of Pakistan. Countries with large numbers of illiterate citizens are relatively undeveloped countries and with illiteracy at a high number, it’s often difficult to “get on track.”
Beyond country development, the inability to read can easily deter a person’s logic and fuel hatred. In 1990, after Iraq invaded Kuwait, U.S. troops rushed to defend the allied country. According to *Dave G, a student at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute of Troy NY, and citizen of Pakistan, many Pakistani people did not understand why the United States was involved at all in the war and believed that the country was trying to overtake Kuwait. This, he said, was due to the fact that they could not comprehend the logic behind the strategic defense, because of illiteracy.
The lack of knowledge fostered hatred towards America, and many protests and acts of violence have ensued. In 2002, a car-bomb exploded outside of the American Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan. Bus bombings, Dave says, are a very common form of protest.
With high violent activity in Pakistan, it’s difficult to understand why action hasn’t been taken to raise literacy and put a stop to the violence. With a cultural limitation in schooling and education, most students do not ask questions on what they’re taught; they simply do what they’re told and stay within the limits. Prohibition of questioning deters any ordinary Pakistani citizen, literate or not, from posing questions to violent protestors. Dealing and living with near constant violence is considered to be the way of life in Pakistan, and no one contests it.
The Pakistani culture is not the only thing prohibiting change. The protection and security systems are also to blame. Pakistani police make a lot less than the average person in Pakistan. Ironically, the income that they make is made up in bribery and pure corruption. So where does a reformer in Pakistan turn to? It’s hard to say, but only time can tell.
*Name change
References:
1. Country Studies. Pakistan. http://countrystudies.us/pakistan/42.htm
2. Target Crime with Literacy. The Problem of Low Literacy in Canada. http://policeabc.ca/literacy-fact-sheets/Page-3.html
3. Country Studies. Pakistan. http://countrystudies.us/pakistan/86.htm
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Taxing Alternatives?
The income tax dates back to the Han dynasty of China. It was used primarily to collect taxes from everyone in order to serve everyone. The income tax, while good for the government and it’s provided services, is not all it’s cracked up to be. Because of the way the American income tax system works, it often discourages savings and investments on the individual level and, on the corporate level, hinders the competitiveness of businesses and economic growth. With problems such as these, organizations such as FairTax surface, giving insight to the American people on new possible ways to provide services.
Instead of an income tax, the FairTax proposes one, visible, Federal sales tax, that would enable people to be taxed ONLY on what goods they choose to purchase, instead of how much they earn. The fair tax allows workers to keep their entire paychecks, enables retirees to keep their entire pensions, and among other things, allows American products to compete fairly. Another positive to the FairTax is that it’s transparent. While the current tax system involves over 60,000 pages, most people don’t actually know what’s included in it.
One of the largest positives for the FairTax is that it doesn’t tax investments. This means that the stock market would have a huge burden lifted off of it, allowing it to have a huge growth, creating many jobs. Another huge pro for the FairTax system, is that all people are taxed based on what they buy. Illegal dealers of drugs such as marijuana and heroin will be taxed on everything they buy whereas now (as they don’t pay an income tax on their illegal earnings), they’re simply rich. Illegal immigrants would also pay the same tax, which goes a great length to solving the illegal immigration problem.
As with anything, there are of course cons to the FairTax system. The FairTax system calls for an abolished income tax, meaning that the sales tax would have to “pick up” in a sense, all current government costs. The current bill in congress calls for a 30% sales tax, turning a $20,000 car into a $26,000 car. For people who have been saving under the current tax code, that would be a huge hit. The FairTax, during the first few stages, would decrease consumer spending, until the break from income taxes would outweigh the cons.
The FairTax is currently supported by five out of eight G.O.P. candidates and one Democratic candidate. The current taxing system does not encourage people to work, invest, or engage in entrepreneurial activities, while the FairTax plan would encourage all of these, causing a huge revenue gain. A full macroeconomic analysis of the proposed plan can be found at http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/MacroeconomicAnalysisofFairTax.pdf.
REFERENCES:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax
2. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
3. http://geekpolitics.com/10-pros-and-cons-of-the-fair-tax/
Instead of an income tax, the FairTax proposes one, visible, Federal sales tax, that would enable people to be taxed ONLY on what goods they choose to purchase, instead of how much they earn. The fair tax allows workers to keep their entire paychecks, enables retirees to keep their entire pensions, and among other things, allows American products to compete fairly. Another positive to the FairTax is that it’s transparent. While the current tax system involves over 60,000 pages, most people don’t actually know what’s included in it.
One of the largest positives for the FairTax is that it doesn’t tax investments. This means that the stock market would have a huge burden lifted off of it, allowing it to have a huge growth, creating many jobs. Another huge pro for the FairTax system, is that all people are taxed based on what they buy. Illegal dealers of drugs such as marijuana and heroin will be taxed on everything they buy whereas now (as they don’t pay an income tax on their illegal earnings), they’re simply rich. Illegal immigrants would also pay the same tax, which goes a great length to solving the illegal immigration problem.
As with anything, there are of course cons to the FairTax system. The FairTax system calls for an abolished income tax, meaning that the sales tax would have to “pick up” in a sense, all current government costs. The current bill in congress calls for a 30% sales tax, turning a $20,000 car into a $26,000 car. For people who have been saving under the current tax code, that would be a huge hit. The FairTax, during the first few stages, would decrease consumer spending, until the break from income taxes would outweigh the cons.
The FairTax is currently supported by five out of eight G.O.P. candidates and one Democratic candidate. The current taxing system does not encourage people to work, invest, or engage in entrepreneurial activities, while the FairTax plan would encourage all of these, causing a huge revenue gain. A full macroeconomic analysis of the proposed plan can be found at http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/MacroeconomicAnalysisofFairTax.pdf.
REFERENCES:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax
2. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
3. http://geekpolitics.com/10-pros-and-cons-of-the-fair-tax/
Friday, January 8, 2010
Revised Healthcare
There is no doubt that something needed to be done with healthcare. With this said, however, is the plan that we have just passed the right one? With commitments such as Medicare, the National Debt, and Social Security, our government, theoretically, should not be taking off more than it can chew. As of now, each citizen shares a portion of the national debt, around $35,000 per household. Still, we are pushing and pushing for more. To make matters worse, not only is the bill difficult to understand, it’s also infeasible.
The first question: what is proposed in the Healthcare Reform Bill? Although a large portion of Americans show high interest and agree that it affects them personally, 69% say that it is hard to understand (1). In an anonymous summary of the Healthcare Bill, user ThomCat on DemocraticUnderground.com posted both good and bad bullets of different sections of the bill. While the pros are very good, the cons are overwhelming. In Statement 12, the user addresses the standard for the Qualifying Plan, which is the base insurance given by employers. The National Qualifying Plan prices and services are set by employers, so if employers start offering less to their employees, the national Qualifying Plan goes down. Following Statement 12, the Cost Sharing Plan is addressed. The average co-pay, per person is projected to be roughly $5,000 per year, and is subject to increase, linked to Consumer Price Index. Not only will enhanced plans cost more, but the services won’t match the payment (2).
With a government-based healthcare system, we are also riding against a core principle in our country itself: a free market society. As stated in Joe Messerli’s article, “Should the Government Provide Free Universal Healthcare for All Americans,” “profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity” have long been the cause for cost control and effectiveness (3). With a government-based plan, this is ruled out and almost no alternatives will be made to help lower prices. Existing insurance companies will have to meet government mandates in order to remain in effect. This will lead to the addition of unnecessary physical appointments to be met by patients (while a trained doctor may know what is wrong with his/her patient, he/she may be bound by contract to run unnecessary tests while the patient’s life could be at risk) (4). Doctors will lose flexibility and suffer from a decrease of salary, resulting in poor patient care, and healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for those who smoke, are obese, etc. Personal freedoms can also decline, as the government will most likely impose regulations or increase taxes on things risks like cigarettes, fast foods, etc. All in all, there is no incentive for young adults to get into the medical practice, there is no incentive to reduce prices in healthcare, as there won’t be any competition, people will lose their individual freedoms and some will be dragged down to compensate for those who don’t pay taxes.
There are alternative ways to easing the difficulty for many of those without health insurance, and certainly, healthcare has gotten out of control. For instance, say we modeled health insurance after car insurance. There are dozens of car insurance companies that all compete for consumers, and thus they keep the prices relatively low. This could be done for health insurance too. Instead of employers deciding what coverage they want, what if the people themselves chose the company they wanted to represent them? And what if there was a base insurance plan, one that covered “x” number of doctor visits, “n” number of hospital visits, “y” number of prescription medicines, etc. The bill does include a plan that would provide for that, however, it is only available to those without employer-provided insurance (quite likely, in the future, the government-run insurer may be able to compete so that they are the ONLY private insurer, allowing them to up their prices- personal opinion, disregard :). On top of that, if someone acquired a personal injury and had to pay high medical bills for that one injury, they could up their medical insurance coverage and only pay for what they needed.
For those who could absolutely not afford medical insurance, they would receive a cut on their payment, but also a cut in what services they could have. Limited Medicaid would also be available. This would all be provided for, of course, by those who can afford to cover themselves. In the Senate bill, tax deductions would decline while new taxes would be added on benefits such as a “Gold-plated” health insurance plan (which would be paid by only those who could afford to have the “Gold-plated” plan). The house bill doesn’t call for an increase on taxes for benefits, but rather a 5.4% increase on income taxes for individuals who earn $500,000 a year and families who earn $1,000,000 (4).
The problem is not just in healthcare. Due to the economic recession, globalization, and new technology, unemployment has been steadily increasing, causing the government to take action. While only 54% were employed by the Federal government in 2000, economist Gary Shillings predicts that 2/3 will owe their livelihoods to them by 2018. This will lead to federal deficits much larger than the ones we incur now, and eventually, the market will collapse as foreign lenders will stop lending (5).
The current government needs to start making decisions that affect the WHOLE country positively, rather than a vocal minority, and more than ever, it needs to start looking at the future of our nation. We’re a sinking ship, but if we start now, we can attempt to save ourselves.
See Gary Shilling’s economic predictions for 2009 at:
http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/1/gary-shillings-2009-predictions-were-still-screwed
1. Kohut, Andrew, et.al. Public Closely Tracking Healthcare Debate. Pew Research Center. 2009. http://people-press.org/report/571/healthcare-obama-economy
2. Anonymous. A Summary Review of the House Healthcare Bill. Democratic Underground. 2009.http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8530145
3. Messerli, Joe. Should the Government Provide Universal Healthcare for All Americans? Balanced Politics .org. 2009. ttp://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm
4. http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20091224/ts_usnews/howthesenatebillwouldchangehealthcare
5. Newman, Rick. How the Government is Swallowing the Economy. US News .com. 2009. http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/11/09/how-the-government-is-swallowing-the-economy
The first question: what is proposed in the Healthcare Reform Bill? Although a large portion of Americans show high interest and agree that it affects them personally, 69% say that it is hard to understand (1). In an anonymous summary of the Healthcare Bill, user ThomCat on DemocraticUnderground.com posted both good and bad bullets of different sections of the bill. While the pros are very good, the cons are overwhelming. In Statement 12, the user addresses the standard for the Qualifying Plan, which is the base insurance given by employers. The National Qualifying Plan prices and services are set by employers, so if employers start offering less to their employees, the national Qualifying Plan goes down. Following Statement 12, the Cost Sharing Plan is addressed. The average co-pay, per person is projected to be roughly $5,000 per year, and is subject to increase, linked to Consumer Price Index. Not only will enhanced plans cost more, but the services won’t match the payment (2).
With a government-based healthcare system, we are also riding against a core principle in our country itself: a free market society. As stated in Joe Messerli’s article, “Should the Government Provide Free Universal Healthcare for All Americans,” “profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity” have long been the cause for cost control and effectiveness (3). With a government-based plan, this is ruled out and almost no alternatives will be made to help lower prices. Existing insurance companies will have to meet government mandates in order to remain in effect. This will lead to the addition of unnecessary physical appointments to be met by patients (while a trained doctor may know what is wrong with his/her patient, he/she may be bound by contract to run unnecessary tests while the patient’s life could be at risk) (4). Doctors will lose flexibility and suffer from a decrease of salary, resulting in poor patient care, and healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for those who smoke, are obese, etc. Personal freedoms can also decline, as the government will most likely impose regulations or increase taxes on things risks like cigarettes, fast foods, etc. All in all, there is no incentive for young adults to get into the medical practice, there is no incentive to reduce prices in healthcare, as there won’t be any competition, people will lose their individual freedoms and some will be dragged down to compensate for those who don’t pay taxes.
There are alternative ways to easing the difficulty for many of those without health insurance, and certainly, healthcare has gotten out of control. For instance, say we modeled health insurance after car insurance. There are dozens of car insurance companies that all compete for consumers, and thus they keep the prices relatively low. This could be done for health insurance too. Instead of employers deciding what coverage they want, what if the people themselves chose the company they wanted to represent them? And what if there was a base insurance plan, one that covered “x” number of doctor visits, “n” number of hospital visits, “y” number of prescription medicines, etc. The bill does include a plan that would provide for that, however, it is only available to those without employer-provided insurance (quite likely, in the future, the government-run insurer may be able to compete so that they are the ONLY private insurer, allowing them to up their prices- personal opinion, disregard :). On top of that, if someone acquired a personal injury and had to pay high medical bills for that one injury, they could up their medical insurance coverage and only pay for what they needed.
For those who could absolutely not afford medical insurance, they would receive a cut on their payment, but also a cut in what services they could have. Limited Medicaid would also be available. This would all be provided for, of course, by those who can afford to cover themselves. In the Senate bill, tax deductions would decline while new taxes would be added on benefits such as a “Gold-plated” health insurance plan (which would be paid by only those who could afford to have the “Gold-plated” plan). The house bill doesn’t call for an increase on taxes for benefits, but rather a 5.4% increase on income taxes for individuals who earn $500,000 a year and families who earn $1,000,000 (4).
The problem is not just in healthcare. Due to the economic recession, globalization, and new technology, unemployment has been steadily increasing, causing the government to take action. While only 54% were employed by the Federal government in 2000, economist Gary Shillings predicts that 2/3 will owe their livelihoods to them by 2018. This will lead to federal deficits much larger than the ones we incur now, and eventually, the market will collapse as foreign lenders will stop lending (5).
The current government needs to start making decisions that affect the WHOLE country positively, rather than a vocal minority, and more than ever, it needs to start looking at the future of our nation. We’re a sinking ship, but if we start now, we can attempt to save ourselves.
See Gary Shilling’s economic predictions for 2009 at:
http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/1/gary-shillings-2009-predictions-were-still-screwed
1. Kohut, Andrew, et.al. Public Closely Tracking Healthcare Debate. Pew Research Center. 2009. http://people-press.org/report/571/healthcare-obama-economy
2. Anonymous. A Summary Review of the House Healthcare Bill. Democratic Underground. 2009.http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8530145
3. Messerli, Joe. Should the Government Provide Universal Healthcare for All Americans? Balanced Politics .org. 2009. ttp://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm
4. http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20091224/ts_usnews/howthesenatebillwouldchangehealthcare
5. Newman, Rick. How the Government is Swallowing the Economy. US News .com. 2009. http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/11/09/how-the-government-is-swallowing-the-economy
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Universal Healthcare Good for All?
There is no doubt that something needed to be done with the previous healthcare system. Is the plan that we have just passed, though, the right one? With commitments such as Medicare, the National Debt, and Social Security, our government should not be biting off more than it can chew. As of now, each citizen shares a portion of the national debt, around $500,000 per household. Still, we are pushing and pushing for more entitlements.
The first question: what is proposed in the Healthcare Reform Bill? Although a large portion of Americans show high interest and agree that it affects them personally, 69% say that it is hard to understand (1). In an anonymous summary of the Healthcare Bill, user ThomCat on DemocraticUnderground.com posted both good and bad bullets of different sections of the bill. While the pros are very good, the cons are overwhelming. In Statement 12, the user addresses the standard for the Qualifying Plan, which is the base insurance given by employers. The National Qualifying Plan prices and services are set by employers, so if employers start offering less coverage to their employees, the national Qualifying Plan goes down. Following Statement 12, the Cost Sharing Plan is addressed. The average co-pay, per person is projected to be roughly $5,000 per year, and is subject to increase, linked to Consumer Price Index. Not only will enhanced plans cost more, but the services won’t match the payment (2).
With a government-based healthcare system, we are also riding against a core principle in our country itself: a free market society. As stated in Joe Messerli’s article, “Should the Government Provide Free Universal Healthcare for All Americans,” “profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity” have long been the cause for cost control and effectiveness (3). With a government-based plan, this is ruled out and no alternatives will be made to help lower prices. Doctors will lose flexibility and suffer from a decrease of salary, resulting in poor patient care, and healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for those who smoke, are obese, etc. Personal freedoms can also decline, as the government will most likely impose regulations or increase taxes on risky products like cigarettes, fast foods, etc. All in all, there is little incentive for young adults to get into the medical practice, there is no incentive to reduce prices in healthcare, as there won’t be any competition, people will lose their individual freedoms and some will be financially burdened to compensate for those who don’t pay taxes.
There are alternative ways to easing the difficulty for many of those without health insurance, and certainly, healthcare has gotten out of control. For instance, say we modeled health insurance after car insurance. If you drive, you MUST have car insurance and you must pay for it. There are dozens of car insurance companies that all compete for consumers, and thus they keep the prices relatively low. This could be done for health insurance too. Instead of employers deciding what coverage they want, what if the people themselves chose the company they wanted to represent them? And what if there was a base insurance plan, one that covered “x” number of doctor visits, “n” number of hospital visits, “y” number of prescription medicines, etc. On top of that, if someone acquired a personal injury and had to pay high medical bills for that one injury, they could up their medical insurance coverage to pay for what they needed.
For those who could absolutely not afford medical insurance, they could receive a cut on their payment, but also a cut in what services they could have. Limited Medicaid would also be available. This is considered “tough love,” however; health coverage is not an entitlement- it is a privilege. Should John Doe (who works hard to pay for his child’s leukemia treatments) have to pay double to cover Angela Jones’ child’s doctor visits for every cough she has because Angela decided to buy that big screen TV last month? The answer is no, and the current government needs to start making decisions that affect the WHOLE country positively, rather than a vocal minority.
1. Kohut, Andrew, et.al. Public Closely Tracking Healthcare Debate. Pew Research Center. 2009. http://people-press.org/report/571/healthcare-obama-economy
2. Anonymous. A Summary Review of the House Healthcare Bill. Democratic Underground. 2009.http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8530145
3. Messerli, Joe. Should the Government Provide Universal Healthcare for All Americans? Balanced Politics .org. 2009. ttp://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm
The first question: what is proposed in the Healthcare Reform Bill? Although a large portion of Americans show high interest and agree that it affects them personally, 69% say that it is hard to understand (1). In an anonymous summary of the Healthcare Bill, user ThomCat on DemocraticUnderground.com posted both good and bad bullets of different sections of the bill. While the pros are very good, the cons are overwhelming. In Statement 12, the user addresses the standard for the Qualifying Plan, which is the base insurance given by employers. The National Qualifying Plan prices and services are set by employers, so if employers start offering less coverage to their employees, the national Qualifying Plan goes down. Following Statement 12, the Cost Sharing Plan is addressed. The average co-pay, per person is projected to be roughly $5,000 per year, and is subject to increase, linked to Consumer Price Index. Not only will enhanced plans cost more, but the services won’t match the payment (2).
With a government-based healthcare system, we are also riding against a core principle in our country itself: a free market society. As stated in Joe Messerli’s article, “Should the Government Provide Free Universal Healthcare for All Americans,” “profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity” have long been the cause for cost control and effectiveness (3). With a government-based plan, this is ruled out and no alternatives will be made to help lower prices. Doctors will lose flexibility and suffer from a decrease of salary, resulting in poor patient care, and healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for those who smoke, are obese, etc. Personal freedoms can also decline, as the government will most likely impose regulations or increase taxes on risky products like cigarettes, fast foods, etc. All in all, there is little incentive for young adults to get into the medical practice, there is no incentive to reduce prices in healthcare, as there won’t be any competition, people will lose their individual freedoms and some will be financially burdened to compensate for those who don’t pay taxes.
There are alternative ways to easing the difficulty for many of those without health insurance, and certainly, healthcare has gotten out of control. For instance, say we modeled health insurance after car insurance. If you drive, you MUST have car insurance and you must pay for it. There are dozens of car insurance companies that all compete for consumers, and thus they keep the prices relatively low. This could be done for health insurance too. Instead of employers deciding what coverage they want, what if the people themselves chose the company they wanted to represent them? And what if there was a base insurance plan, one that covered “x” number of doctor visits, “n” number of hospital visits, “y” number of prescription medicines, etc. On top of that, if someone acquired a personal injury and had to pay high medical bills for that one injury, they could up their medical insurance coverage to pay for what they needed.
For those who could absolutely not afford medical insurance, they could receive a cut on their payment, but also a cut in what services they could have. Limited Medicaid would also be available. This is considered “tough love,” however; health coverage is not an entitlement- it is a privilege. Should John Doe (who works hard to pay for his child’s leukemia treatments) have to pay double to cover Angela Jones’ child’s doctor visits for every cough she has because Angela decided to buy that big screen TV last month? The answer is no, and the current government needs to start making decisions that affect the WHOLE country positively, rather than a vocal minority.
1. Kohut, Andrew, et.al. Public Closely Tracking Healthcare Debate. Pew Research Center. 2009. http://people-press.org/report/571/healthcare-obama-economy
2. Anonymous. A Summary Review of the House Healthcare Bill. Democratic Underground. 2009.http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8530145
3. Messerli, Joe. Should the Government Provide Universal Healthcare for All Americans? Balanced Politics .org. 2009. ttp://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)