Waiting On The Economy

In my previous blog, I discussed how former President Bill Clinton will speak on behalf of Obama's policies for the economy. Obama realizes what's at stake here and could not have choose a better time to attempt to reassure American citizens about their economy. Although it is not the only issue by far, the economy has been seen to be the deciding factor when choosing a President. When the economy is good, the people are happy. This should be a major area of concern for Obama and his campaign.


Why should Obama be concerned? Well for one, he has been in the office these past four years, therefore the economy's current progress is based on his policies. Although the economy has made great strides since the recession at the beginning of Obama's term, many feel that this progress is moving too slow. The economy is still troubled and people need to feel confident that their economy is headed in the right direction. So the question comes down to do we trust Obama and give him time to enact his plan? Do we agree he has had his chance and its time to let someone else stake over? These questions reveal Obama's third opponent...the economy.


Right now Obama is leading the race, but by a slight margin. The state of the economy may be enough to pull Obama down and give Romney the edge to win. People must believe there is growth and the economy is doing better. A poll has shown many people believe Romney has the business expertise to handle the economy. This may be what the people want, a fresh start, someone they believe is skilled in the area of economics. This poses a major threat to Obama.


Romney sees this opportunity and attacks Obama about his slow progress in the economy. Romney's campaign does exactly that in this ad against Obama Unemployment. Americans are watching how the economy is panning out as the election draws near. It's clear Obama recognizes the threat of his third opponent and I believe he will make steps to tackle this problem. Will Americans continue to put trust in our current President or choose to go in a new direction. It's a close race and only time will tell. As for me I will be keeping an eye of any updates while taking time off my blog for football camp in August. Stay tuned! 

Experience Matters

Bill Clinton was the President for most my childhood. I didn't know much about politics, but I did like Bill Clinton. My father would always talk about how he made the economy better and he was a popular President. People understood that Clinton knew how to get the economy together, and what better time would it be to get advice from the former President.


Obama recently announced that Bill Clinton will speak at the Democratic National Convention. This is a very strategical move on the behalf of Obama in my opinion. The Democratic party will show unity that the Republican party can't display. The popularity and respect of Bill Clinton will strengthen voters support in Obama's policies for the economy. 


Clinton seemed enthusiastic to speak on behalf of Obama. Clinton will begin by addressing that rebuilding the economy will start from the middle class. It seems like the ties between Obama and Clinton have strengthen and just in time for reelection. 


Will this create more voters to side with Obama? I don't believe it will do any damage to his campaign. Citizens understand at the end of the day the vote will come down to who can fix the economy. America needs more jobs, families want to live comfortably, so you can never go wrong focusing on the economy. When it comes to advice, Clinton's the man to get it from. Let's see how this effects Obama's campaign.

Gun Control: To Have Guns Or Not

I have revisited the idea of gun control, should American citizens have guns or not? Many countries outside of America do not allow their citizens to carry guns, does this really decrease the chance of firearm attacks. It may or it may not, based on this article http://www.foreignpolicy.com some countries' gun violence have risen after stricter gun laws, while some proved to be civil with guns. So, I ask the question again, should American citizens have guns or not, and the answer without a doubt is yes.


The second amendment was first given to the people to prevent tyranny against a controlling government. Citizens could create militias and protect themselves. Taking away Americans' guns will do something psychological to the people as it will seem as if the government is trying to take control of our lives, this is a Democracy. What may have worked in other countries doesn't necessarily mean it will work in America. If guns are taken away, the black market will seize the opportunity to make a large profit from guns because they will be in high demand. No matter how strict the laws become, there will always be someone with a supply just as there is with every illegal drug. All illegal activities can't be monitored. How safe would you feel knowing there are people with guns and you legally can't own one. Of course I would rather no one have a gun and we all get along peacefully, but this is the real world and a criminal is not going to care about your opinion on gun control.


The next question is should citizens be allowed to purchase assault weapons. In theory, you want to fight fire power with more fire power. If someone is shooting a M16, the person with a pistol will not get a shot off. Thinking along the lines of extreme cases, if someone attacks me with an assault rifle I will have a better chance using an assault rifle. Now should we let an onslaught of bullets spray randomly? When it comes to fully automatic guns this may be the case, but a semi-automatic is able to exchange a high rate of fire while only releasing one bullet at a time when the trigger is squeezed and let go. If someone is trained, they would be able to hit their target effectively without putting other lives in danger. I feel if someone else has a powerful gun, you should want one too; but I am a rational man and realize these are extreme cases. The line must be drawn somewhere, everyone can't be running around with assault weapons. At the end of the day I agree there should be a ban on assault weapons.


I realize that many people are not comfortable around guns and thats understandable. I grew up around many families who owned guns and still provided a safe atmosphere at home. I have a friend whose family taught her how to assemble a gun and will buy her one as soon as she graduates college. Obviously her family feels she is more likely to be a victim to a crime and believe that will make her safer. The point is, some people truly believe they need a gun for protection. If you don't, that's fine you have the right to not buy one. That doesn't mean take the right away from the person who believes they should own a gun. This is America, guns will always be around regardless if they are banned or not. One might as well have the option to legally own one.

Put Away The Muscle?

Everyone has been made aware of the tragic event that had occurred in Aurora, Colorado. An unnecessary slaughter of innocent lives who only wished to enjoy the latest installment of the Batman series. The shooter, James Holmes, used a semi-automatic, a shotgun, and a pistol to kill people in the theater. Obama has expressed his sympathy and what follows that becomes a reemerging issue, where do we go with gun laws?


As America seemed to wait for Obama to address the issues on guns, he avoided the subject never mentioning the word gun. In 2008, Obama reassured arms bearers he would not take away their guns. Obama seems to believe that there is no need for new gun laws. He wants to use the existing gun laws to prohibit those who shouldn't have guns not to have them with a thorough background check.


Romney, as a governor of Massachusetts, had to deal with strict gun laws. There he supported a ban against assault weapons. Even with this background Romney doesn't believe it is a need to create any new laws for gun control. Romney says as President he would do a more efficient job enforcing the current laws.


It seems that neither candidate is really set on changing the gun control laws. I'm not completely familiar with how strict it is to obtain firearms state by state, but feel better background checks can be put to use. I agree that there should not be anymore laws created, but enforce the ones in place better. Yes, the Colorado shooting was unfortunate, but their is really no way of controlling a random attack like that. I don't think making it harder to obtain weapons will stop these kind of crimes from happening. People deserve to have protection in the event someone may invade their home in such a manner. It shouldn't always be like that, but we live in a violent world and its better safe than sorry.

Micro Vs. Macro

Recently Mitt Romney became the aggressor and attacked Obama for undermining entrepreneurship in America. Obama made a comment basically saying individual businesses would not be where they are today without the help of the government and its investments. Romney used this statement to highlight the differences between Obama's views on the economy and his own.


Romney seemed appalled during his speech that Obama would take away the individual efforts from entrepreneurs such as Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. Romney felt Obama is trying to change the culture of business and that his comments were insulting to those that worked hard for their establishments. Obama's actual words were,"Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet." This is the video. It can clearly be seen that Obama feels powerhouse businesses need to pay its dues to the nation.


I understand where Obama is coming from when he makes his statement, without general advancement in society businesses would not have the success it does now. The government is responsible for a lot of these advancements such as roads and the internet. Many of these business are investing money out of the country, but if it were invested here in America it would create more jobs for our economy.


Obama seems to be taking away the individual drive and courage it takes to start a business. Obama wants to make the point that business depended on government, but in life everything depends on something else at one point of time or another. I can see why Romney wants to attack Obama for this comment. America is a country built on capitalism and that allows the individual to make something out of nothing. Romney is also taking the attention off the fact he hasn't released more of his tax returns with this attack. I feel that both Obama and Romney need to recognize that both individual efforts and the infrastructure as a whole should work coherently to produce the best results. 

Get a Job? What's the rush?

Under Clinton's administration the welfare reform of 1996 demonstrated social improvements. The basic concept of the welfare reform was to require people who are physically able to work or prepare for work would be allowed to receive welfare aid if eligible. This welfare reform improved job employment and lowered child poverty.

The definition of work is now being questioned. Obama's administration is issuing a directive stating that these work requirements can be waived. This will create more flexibility when it comes to being eligible for welfare. Clearly, this will make it easier to receive welfare for citizens who are struggling with jobs, but is this necessarily needed?

Welfare is a great way to help struggling people have a sense of security while they are trying to get back on their feet. It is needed to keep crisis, such as the Great Depression, from reoccurring such that families were unable to provide for themselves. I'm from Cleveland, Ohio, which is not a city with the best economy. There are many people who genuinely need welfare to make it day to day. These people are stuck in situations where minimum wage jobs are hard to come by. I can understand the significance of welfare for citizens who are in situations they can not control. As long as one is trying to help themselves, they deserve assistance.

On the other hand, not everybody takes initiative and attempts to take the easy way out. I feel as a person you should always want to push to make the best of your situation, but not everyone has an internal drive like that. Many need to be pushed and put under pressure to really get going. The welfare reform that required people to work encourages them to get back on their feet and get off of assistance. Making the requirement to work more lenient will take the pressure off able bodied citizens to really make a great effort to find work for themselves. Come on now, if your getting paid to do nothing whats really motivating you to go work for less money you are currently receiving?

Republicans Strike Back

Republicans are not going to back down easily. Disappointed in Obama's health care law, the republicans gathered for committee hearings and other events in order to plan to vote against the reform.  With 30 plus efforts to go against the Affordable Health Care act, it can be seen this back and forth battle has been going on for a while. Republicans strike back because of their fear that the health care reform would not be able to contain the rising costs of coverage.


Looking from the Democrats perspective, this debate is becoming repetitive especially after the Supreme court has made its vote. Democrats argue that repealing this issue is a waste of time and tax dollars. One would think after the supreme court has made its decision we could move on to another issue. Actually the opposite occurred, inspire the Republicans to rally for the repeal.


Clearly everything will have its pros and cons. We live in a world where we have to take the good with the bad. The federal law may hinder the doctor to patient relationship. Some worry that the actual quality will become less efficient. The wealthy will be taxed more and feel others will get health off their money.


These are fair accusations to fight against, but at the end of the day what will be the real result. I'm all for fighting for what you believe in, but how much progress will happen by taking steps backwards. It seems like the process is just becoming drawn out, a decision must be made in order for progress. If I was wealthy I would not want a large amount of my money taking out my check, but rather that than be denied health care when I'm ill. Even though the Obamacare may have notable flaws, it does give benefits to millions to those who otherwise wouldn't have had them. Eventually a decision must be made based on the greater good, understand there will be bad to go along with it.

Health Care and Why It Matters

Obama finally gets his health care reform passed after a couple of years of him battling for it. Despite the strong opposition of the Republican party, The Supreme Court upheld an individual mandate in a 5-4 ruling allowing the health care bill to pass. Obama is sticking behind his stance one hundred percent, explaining there is no reason to spend more years debating this past issue. 


The individual mandate is considered constitutional, and is therefore allowed to pass the health care bill. If a citizen refuses to pay for health care coverage they can be penalized with a tax. While the federal government does not have the power to force someone to buy insurance, they do have the power to impose a tax for those who do not. Arguments have been proposed since the bill has been signed, some concerning the government's exceeding power to impose such laws. If they can to this what will stop them from abusing this power? Upholding the mandate under the taxing clause is not a way of exceeding power, but a way of using one that was already in place. Placing taxes on cigarettes influence people to stop smoking, and taxing citizens without coverage will influence them to get health care.


As a country the important issues should be determined on the well being of our citizens. Nothing will ever be perfect and that is why issues have too sides of the spectrum, but basic human rights should never be denied. There are many situations were citizens can't receive health care because they are unhealthy, that's the real problem. Would you want to watch a loved one suffer? Of course not, just as its important to deliver education to a younger generation it is equally important to maintain health for a better future as a whole nation. 


People are worried about their coverage changing or not receiving the proper quality as before. Some feel the government is becoming too controlling, forcing us to have coverage and believe that more employees will lose their jobs. On the other hand, it's believed the health reform will lower the nations debt and help benefit a lot more people who couldn't receive proper care before. It's understandable why this is such a heavily debated issue, but at the end of the day this is a decision about livelihood and the well being of our country. However one may feel about the health care reform, they must agree something must be done.