The proposed increase in troop levels in Afghanistan has been a popular topic of debate lately, as the pertinence of the matter is growing. President Obama has been confronted and pressed to make a staggering decision as to whether more troops will be put on the ground in the region, or if we'll continue as we have. Through the recommendations of General McChrystal and other military specialists, an alleged forty thousand soldiers are to be placed in the inhospitable territories, to aid in the U.S. forces and quell the hostile resistance.
Obama, however, has been hesitant toward the proposition, for he is weary to endanger more lives than necessary. Simultaneously, he is responding not to the necessity as conveyed by our military leaders, but to public opinion. Poll numbers have appeared to dictate his actions more clearly than logic, for the difference in standings has delayed his decision. With fifty five percent of the population supporting a 10,000 troop increase, yet only forty three percent supporting the full 40,000, Obama is wary to make a decision that will further withdraw from his declining approval rating.
The issue that needs to be resolved is an issue of indecision. Soldiers are dying in a foreign land, for they are unequipped to successfully complete their mission. Obama needs to take immediate action, heeding the advice of his generals, and send the entirety of the recommended 40,000 troops over to quickly gain control of the region, or he needs to remove all brigades and bring them home. The soldiers on the ground currently have no opportunity to be victorious in their endeavors. It is the Commander and Chief’s job to supply them with a route to victory. If a democratic system and the general establishment of peace in the region is no longer a viable goal, we need to protect our men and bring them home.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
A Growing Deficit
As found in the The Huffington Post this week, Tony Blankley articulates the severity of our nation's financial situation. Now unanimously agreed upon, by both Democrats and Republicans alike, our national deficit is growing at an ever increasing rate. The "unsustainable deficit", as deemed by analysts, is driving our country into a predictable poverty, one that our federal government is openly embracing.
Blankley harshly criticizes President Obama's promise for health care reform, especially in a time of recession, for our country cannot bare the added debt. Rather than divert funds to pay for the new bill, Blankley proposes that the cut costs be maintained, but the new costs be postponed until our country gains its fiscal value back. With the minimized spending of Medicare and Medicaid, and the eventual pushing back of the eligible age to take part of the system, our nation can eventually recuperate.
Blankley demonstrates pure logic as he elaborates upon the pertinent issue. Through his political illustration, he appeals to the general public, those who pays taxes and are generally affected by national disputes and actions. I find that he is credible, for he presents an argument, devoid of opinion and supported by facts, and presents a temporary solution to harsh reality. It is not a desirable solution, but regardless, it necessary that we do what we must as a nation to stay afloat.
I strongly agree with this analysis, for we are attempting an irrational goal to reorganize health care without maintaining our own national infrastructure. While Obama might be successful in pushing through reform and spreading coverage to millions of uninsured people, the Chinese could reclaim their debt. We don't have the money to pay China back. Half of America could be part of New China within the next decade if we progress in the direction that we have digressed in. We may have health care, but at what cost? Is it worth becoming Chinese?
Blankley harshly criticizes President Obama's promise for health care reform, especially in a time of recession, for our country cannot bare the added debt. Rather than divert funds to pay for the new bill, Blankley proposes that the cut costs be maintained, but the new costs be postponed until our country gains its fiscal value back. With the minimized spending of Medicare and Medicaid, and the eventual pushing back of the eligible age to take part of the system, our nation can eventually recuperate.
Blankley demonstrates pure logic as he elaborates upon the pertinent issue. Through his political illustration, he appeals to the general public, those who pays taxes and are generally affected by national disputes and actions. I find that he is credible, for he presents an argument, devoid of opinion and supported by facts, and presents a temporary solution to harsh reality. It is not a desirable solution, but regardless, it necessary that we do what we must as a nation to stay afloat.
I strongly agree with this analysis, for we are attempting an irrational goal to reorganize health care without maintaining our own national infrastructure. While Obama might be successful in pushing through reform and spreading coverage to millions of uninsured people, the Chinese could reclaim their debt. We don't have the money to pay China back. Half of America could be part of New China within the next decade if we progress in the direction that we have digressed in. We may have health care, but at what cost? Is it worth becoming Chinese?
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Publicly Funded Abortion; No Bueno
Posted in the New York Times this week, an editorial highlighting the exclusion of abortion coverage in the National Health Care Reform Bill argues against the validity of such a clause. The author defines this restriction as, “an improper government intrusion into Americans’ private lives,” denoting that certain types of procedures should not be specified under coverage, but rather, that all procedures, regardless of nature, should be covered under the plan.
The author explains a new proposition that would segregate funds, prohibiting the federal tax subsidies from funding such procedures, but rather, the funds from premium plans and co-payments would have to finance such coverage. Disagreeing with the foundation of the compromise, however, the author attests that current plans already provide such coverage, with a large fraction of employer-provided policies covering the procedure.
The author of the selection obviously takes a liberal approach to the subject. Being a controversial subject, credibility, or a lack there of, is irrelevant to label the author with, for all opinions are acceptable as such. Demonstrating a desire to fully back abortion under all provisions of health care does, however, happen to be an opinion that I strongly disagree with. While I agree that hypocrisy reigns freely in our national government, that rights of individuals should be preserved as well as defended, this is not a right that should be under debate. Before the technology was developed making such a procedure possible, abortion was not an option for women, nor was it ever thought of as morally acceptable if it was. Regardless of necessity or simple convenience, preventing a child from the opportunity of life would not be plausible.
Taking the debate to the moral level, I find that it is as heinous as murder. In war, men fight and die in the name of defense. An unborn child, however, has no ability to defend itself. It will die. Whether a conglomerate of developing cells, or fully functioning union of organs and blood vessels, it should have the opportunity to live. We are all guarantied the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The unborn child, however, is denied that fundamental first right.
Expanding the argument to a imposition on the masses, forcing the common individual to fund such subsidies that would directly finance such operations would be unconstitutional. Prayer was removed from school because it could no longer be required of students to participate in an activity that they did not support or believe in. The Ten Commandments were removed from a courtroom because they did not support a free environment, but rather one of a certain point of view. If such actions were taken to protect the convictions of the non-religious and the diversified, how could I be required to compromise my Judeo-Christian values under the auspices of a better society? If I felt that abortion was legalized murder, how could I be required to fund a government health care plan that supported such actions? Abortion and Euthanasia coexist. Who are we to play God?
The author explains a new proposition that would segregate funds, prohibiting the federal tax subsidies from funding such procedures, but rather, the funds from premium plans and co-payments would have to finance such coverage. Disagreeing with the foundation of the compromise, however, the author attests that current plans already provide such coverage, with a large fraction of employer-provided policies covering the procedure.
The author of the selection obviously takes a liberal approach to the subject. Being a controversial subject, credibility, or a lack there of, is irrelevant to label the author with, for all opinions are acceptable as such. Demonstrating a desire to fully back abortion under all provisions of health care does, however, happen to be an opinion that I strongly disagree with. While I agree that hypocrisy reigns freely in our national government, that rights of individuals should be preserved as well as defended, this is not a right that should be under debate. Before the technology was developed making such a procedure possible, abortion was not an option for women, nor was it ever thought of as morally acceptable if it was. Regardless of necessity or simple convenience, preventing a child from the opportunity of life would not be plausible.
Taking the debate to the moral level, I find that it is as heinous as murder. In war, men fight and die in the name of defense. An unborn child, however, has no ability to defend itself. It will die. Whether a conglomerate of developing cells, or fully functioning union of organs and blood vessels, it should have the opportunity to live. We are all guarantied the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The unborn child, however, is denied that fundamental first right.
Expanding the argument to a imposition on the masses, forcing the common individual to fund such subsidies that would directly finance such operations would be unconstitutional. Prayer was removed from school because it could no longer be required of students to participate in an activity that they did not support or believe in. The Ten Commandments were removed from a courtroom because they did not support a free environment, but rather one of a certain point of view. If such actions were taken to protect the convictions of the non-religious and the diversified, how could I be required to compromise my Judeo-Christian values under the auspices of a better society? If I felt that abortion was legalized murder, how could I be required to fund a government health care plan that supported such actions? Abortion and Euthanasia coexist. Who are we to play God?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)