Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This blog is for students in Ms. Aby's 12th grade AP US Government class at Jefferson High School in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on the 2008 presidential campaign. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Presidential Campaign Blog
Objectives:
*To become proficient in the candidates & campaign methods in the 2008 presidential election
*To have an intelligent dialogue regarding the election with your peers
*To become more comfortable with an emerging technology in the field of political science (blogging)
Student Tasks:
*To have an email account to do this assignment. If you do not have one please see the instructor for help.
*Student will need to do their own independent research using online sources.
*To post a minimum of 4 times your own independent comment on the 4 questions/topics the teacher posts throughout the quarter. Your post should offer a unique contribution to the discussion. Your post should offer analysis as well as evidence to substantiate your viewpoint. Your post should include links to your evidence.
*To post a minimum of 4 times in response to other students. Your post should either be a concurring opinion (add to the argument by offering relevant points & new sources to develop that argument) or you can dissent with a peer. Your post should offer analysis as well as evidence to substantiate your viewpoint. Your post should include links to your evidence.
*A post should be a full paragraph and use correct grammar and spelling. Your posts should comment on or attack the argument of a peer – not the peer her or himself. There is an expectation by the instructor & the administration that the same standards for behavior & respect at school apply to the blog.
*To post online in a timely manner. The posts will be due on a series of due dates. Students need to post by the due date in order for the conversation to be able to continue on track. Late posts will not receive half credit.
*Students are not required to represent their own personal opinions. You can play “devil’s advocate” in order to challenge each other & move the conversation forward. It is the instructor’s belief that all sides of the argument be understood in order to appreciate the complexity of the issue.
* Students should not use text message language in their posts. This is an academic blog and should use formal language.
Site Recommendations (please pass on other sites you’d recommend!):
Washington Post (washingtonpost.com)
LA Times (latimes.com)
New York Times (nytimes.com)
BBC (bbc.co.uk)
The Guardian (guardian.co.uk)
Aljazeera (english.aljazeera.net/English)
Newspapers internationally & domestically (refdesk.com/paper.html)
The teacher will grade the student’s blog posts holistically. In addition, the individual student will choose which posts (1 original post & 1 response post) to submit for grading.
The criteria for evaluating includes: the organization of information, consideration of alternatives, disciplinary content, elaborated written communication, research, amount of contributions, & the quality of writing.
*To become proficient in the candidates & campaign methods in the 2008 presidential election
*To have an intelligent dialogue regarding the election with your peers
*To become more comfortable with an emerging technology in the field of political science (blogging)
Student Tasks:
*To have an email account to do this assignment. If you do not have one please see the instructor for help.
*Student will need to do their own independent research using online sources.
*To post a minimum of 4 times your own independent comment on the 4 questions/topics the teacher posts throughout the quarter. Your post should offer a unique contribution to the discussion. Your post should offer analysis as well as evidence to substantiate your viewpoint. Your post should include links to your evidence.
*To post a minimum of 4 times in response to other students. Your post should either be a concurring opinion (add to the argument by offering relevant points & new sources to develop that argument) or you can dissent with a peer. Your post should offer analysis as well as evidence to substantiate your viewpoint. Your post should include links to your evidence.
*A post should be a full paragraph and use correct grammar and spelling. Your posts should comment on or attack the argument of a peer – not the peer her or himself. There is an expectation by the instructor & the administration that the same standards for behavior & respect at school apply to the blog.
*To post online in a timely manner. The posts will be due on a series of due dates. Students need to post by the due date in order for the conversation to be able to continue on track. Late posts will not receive half credit.
*Students are not required to represent their own personal opinions. You can play “devil’s advocate” in order to challenge each other & move the conversation forward. It is the instructor’s belief that all sides of the argument be understood in order to appreciate the complexity of the issue.
* Students should not use text message language in their posts. This is an academic blog and should use formal language.
Site Recommendations (please pass on other sites you’d recommend!):
Washington Post (washingtonpost.com)
LA Times (latimes.com)
New York Times (nytimes.com)
BBC (bbc.co.uk)
The Guardian (guardian.co.uk)
Aljazeera (english.aljazeera.net/English)
Newspapers internationally & domestically (refdesk.com/paper.html)
The teacher will grade the student’s blog posts holistically. In addition, the individual student will choose which posts (1 original post & 1 response post) to submit for grading.
The criteria for evaluating includes: the organization of information, consideration of alternatives, disciplinary content, elaborated written communication, research, amount of contributions, & the quality of writing.
75 comments:
Here goes:
I’m guessing that I won’t be the only student claiming that the Iraq War is the most important issue in the upcoming election. However, the issue is so incredibly pressing that I can’t understand how it could be treated as insignificant or unimportant.
No matter how you put it, liberating oppressed people can’t really sound like a bad thing to do. And in late 2003, 87% of the American public supported President Bush’s invasion of Iraq and the liberation of the Iraqi people. The President championed his war strategy in the shadow of fear cast by reported weapons of mass destruction and Hussein’s alleged support of Al Qaeda. However, the rosy image of war that he had painted for his supporters was soon tainted by a profound lack of progress and the steadily increasing amount of US soldier deaths. Slowly beginning to abandon their faith in their president and government, the American public has gradually discovered that the path to liberation has taken a regressive route. Liberation accompanied by the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, a lack of true sovereignty, and tragic living conditions for those we are attempting to liberate is an embarrassment to our country. Is it liberation? Hardly. According the 2004 survey in the British Medical Journal The Lancet, US forces have killed more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians between March 2003 and October 2004, a great majority of which were women and children. A number of people will argue that the US actions and the accompanying conditions are better than those under the regime of Saddam Hussein. However under Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi people had working electricity-grids, sewage and water facilities, and an impressive first-class health care system. (1). Now, 78% of the population does not have adequate electricity, 46% does not have access to safe drinking water, and the health care system lies in ruins. With facilities standing neglected and destroyed by U.S. bombings, the citizens of Iraq have no resources with which to fix their situation and are in the mist of a humanitarian crisis with insufficient aid.
It is absolutely necessary that the 2008 election stresses the importance of fixing the disaster that our government has created. Unless a candidate can provide a clear plan for pulling out of Iraq and alleviating the problems it has caused, I have no faith that they will gain the respect of the country and the position of president.
1:http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2005/0516tragic.htm
Oh, the link turned out to be faulty.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq
That's the right one, I used various links that you can get if you scroll down the page.
I agree with you, Sophie, but I something I might add to your statistics is how many Americans have been killed in Iraq. According to an Associate Press count, 3752 American troops have died in Iraq as of September seventh of this year. Personally I never supported the war in Iraq, but myself and many others believe the safety of our own troops is very important.
I agree that the war in Iraq is one of the most important issues for the 2008 election. The war has been going on for over four and a half years now and the Department of Defense has confirmed 3,760 U.S. deaths in Iraq. That number only represents U.S. soldiers killed but the Washington Post reports, “American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.” These deaths are classified as “excess deaths”. That number is number is ridiculous, Iraq’s mortality rate is now four times higher than it was before we invaded Iraq. These statistics make me question if we are doing more harm than help in Iraq. I wouldn’t doubt that some good has come from U.S. occupation such as the green zone in Baghdad but we do not have the means to turn the whole country into a green zone. The national debt has astoundingly reached 9,012,350,900,666 dollars and since September 2006 the debt has been growing each day on average by 1.47 billion dollars. I support a withdrawal from Iraq but I do not think that all of our 168,000 troops currently in Iraq should jump on a plane tomorrow. The process would happen gradually to move toward eventually having no troops in Iraq. If we are “training” Iraqi forces why aren’t they being better utilized to defend their own country? Recently CNN reported that a battalion of 700 to 800 Iraqi soldiers were downgraded from a “level one” meaning they can fight on their own to a “level two” meaning that they need U.S. support to fight. This seems to me like the U.S. is not training the Iraqi forces very well.
Here are the websites I checked out:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/24/iraq.security/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442_pf.html
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070906222140.rqp2rouq&show_article=1
Hi!
Personally I think that the most important issue is the Iraq war. Both supporters and critics of the Iraq war are following the campaign to see what will happen with the Iraq war. For example, on the Washington Post website there is a special section on the 2008 campaign and if you look at each candidate it tell you how many times they were mentioned in an article that related to the war in Iraq. Many of the candidates have been mentioned in the articles regarding Iraq more than 50 times. The democrat, Barack Obama has been mentioned in a whopping 302 articles and from the Republicans, John Mccain was mentioned in 212 articles. Even though this fact doesn't necessarily tell you how important the Iraq war is to voters, it tell you how important it is to the media and to the candidates. Most candidates take it upon themselves to be the hero of the Iraq war. It kind of reminds me a bit of the 1968 elections. Vietnam back there was one of the biggest issues and Richard Nixon won because he appeared to have a clear view on what he future of the war was. My own opinion is that the elections in 2008 will come down to that. Who has a plan for the war in Iraq. A CNN article talks about how almost two-thirds of Americans oppose the war in Iraq. Because of this massive number of critics, it makes me think that these people will be the deciding factor during these elections. Personally, if I could vote, I would vote for a candidate that has a clear view on the future of the war in Iraq because I am very disappointed with the current situation in Iraq. It seems like there's no end to this war. The Democrats haven't been able to do much in Congress because Pres. Bush is not refusing to let go of the war. I think we should gradually bring our troops home. By gradually I mean, in a few months. Too many people have died and I think it has taken too long to come to a conclusion.
The stuff that I looked at:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/?nid=roll_08campaign
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/22/bush.iraq.speech/?iref=mpstoryview
This is a response to Anne!!! :)
I agree that this war is too long and I was really surprised by our national debt. I knew that we were spending money like crazy but I didn't know that we were spending that much. I also agree that maybe we are not training the Iraqi forces very well. I mean why are we still there if these Iraqi forces are doing so well? Shouldn't they be able to defend their country without us being there?
I also believe that Iraq is the most important issue in the 2008 election. This is evident in the focus of both major parties on the upcoming Petraeus report. Democrats say it will show how important it is for the war to end, and Rupublicans believe it will justify the lives and tax dollars given there. Instead of summerizing previous postings that I believe adequately explain why Iraq is important, I would like to comment about what the new face of Iraq policy could look like.
Regardless of the emphasis Bush puts on “staying the course”, eventually America will leave Iraq. However, this could occur in two ways:
1. America pulls out suddenly and completely. This could be the result of a retreat caused my unified Iraqi or foreign forces. It could also be caused by the immediate and dire need for the troops somewhere else.
2. America gradually reduces troop levels over time either because Iraq is able to stand on its own, or American voters believe that the price for leading Iraq to a stable democratic government is too high.
Which is more likely? It depends on who controls the White House in a little over a year. However, it is important to recognize that in both of these possibilities there is a very slim chance that we will achieve the goal we went in with. The most important questions that must be answered are: Philosphically, could the Sunnis get along with the Shiites get along with the Kurds enough to reach policy decisions that benefit all citizens? Or will the majority rule not because it is a compromise of many groups but because it is simply the largest group?
If they can compromise, then they must prove it by telling American forces to leave and start taking responsibility. If they cannot, then I fear that the current bloodshed will pale in comparison to the unrestricted civil war that could ensue when we leave. To say that the issue is complicated is an understatement, but to end this war favorably we must see our own limitations and decide when we are doing more harm than good.
In writng this post I consulted:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090801777.html
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/world/middleeast/09surge.html?ex=1346990400&en=996052fb5f065742&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Perhaps an appropriate preface in responding to this question would be to disagree with the notion that a single issue should drive a presidential campaign. I think more than a few would agree that many social, economic, and foreign policy issues are important. This has to be, solely given a US population of over 300 million (US Census Bureau).
With that said and to this end, I will present a researched proponent case for an issue that is not wholly my opinion: federal tax reform. More specifically, the case for national sales tax, which has been presented to legislators in some form since the late 1990s (Don't Buy the Sales Tax, Brookings Institute).
Taxes fund our most basic luxuries (which are likely called necessities by US residents); hospitals, schools, law enforcement, roadways, the justice system... taxes are the economic scaffold of our society. To this end, they are and will remain of vital importance to the United States.
Much of the federal revenue in the United States is generated through direct taxation of income. Of the 2.2 trillion federal tax dollars in 2006, 54% was attained through individual and corporate income taxes. And while the income tax system may be generally perceived as progressive, tax cuts for the wealthy and legal tax avoidance methods, perpetrated by America's top 2%, leave the middle and lower classes bearing the burden (or the country and its necessary programs budget-deficiet).
Reasons such as this have led to proposals for a national sales tax alternatives which would completely replace the current income tax system with a simple, visible, and proportional (neutral) tax on all US residents.
The benefits of such a system can be seen in many overt ways. Firstly, everyone who purchases anything at retail pays taxes. This encompasses groups of individuals who likely have no documented source of income, from illegal aliens to local drug dealers, thereby innately increasing federal tax dollars that will benefit American residents. Furthermore, without a federal income tax system, worker's real wages would increase by 8%, and many economists believe that the purchasing power of every economic class would also increase. With this in mind, let's examine how many tax dollars would be generated under a proposed national sales tax system using Consumer Price Index data for 2005 (Consumer Expenditures Report '05).
According to the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics, of the 117.4 million consumer units (BLS Glossary), 5.4 trillion dollars were spent on taxable goods and services. Under a national sales tax rate of 30% (tax exclusive, 23% tax inclusive), 1.6 trillion dollars would be generated in federal tax dollars, a raw increase of 25%, or 400 billion dollars.
Business leaders also point to the benefits that a national sales tax would have on consumer product prices. As income tax incurs costs at several stages of a products manufacture, prices for these items increases, thus shifting the burden to the end consumer. Under one of the proposed national sales tax initiatives, retail prices would be reduced up to 25%.
Alan Greenspan, economist and former chairman of the Federal Reserve, estimated that there exists $11 trillion (11,000,000,000,000) US dollars in foreign, untaxed banking accounts. Under a new consumption based tax system, he predicts that all $11 trillion would flood back to the US, giving the economy a vital boost.
With all of these presented benefits, It would seem the case for national sales tax as a replacement to income tax is a solid one. However, some glaring problems arise. Under the most prominent (and perhaps only) proposal for this proportional tax system, not only are income taxes abolished, but payroll and estate taxes as well.
Payroll taxes are largely used to fund both Social Security and Medicare in the form of $800 million dollars in 2006 (a year in which $900 million was spent on the programs). Thusly, we can see that payroll taxes are the spinal cord of these social welfare programs. Estate and gift taxes, which only affect the wealthiest top 2% of Americans, brought in an additional $26 billion dollars in 2006.
Despite which side of the argument is presented, it's clear that taxation is and will continue to be an important issue in how to solve and fund America's problems and solutions respectively, particularly as debate over the country's social welfare programs occupies a significant portion of the political spotlight.
Other Sources
NST:Who Bears the Burden?, Cato Institute
Greenspans' Solution = FairTax, The Conservative Voice
What is the FairTax?, FairTax.org
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/roe.wade/stories/roe.profile/
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/index.html#SU
http://www.teenbreaks.com/abortion/girlswhoaborted.cfm?start=8
Many may disagree with me but I have to say that I think that the most important item for this election is the case of Roe Vs Wade. I believe that the Supreme Court decision needs to be overturned. In the past years the number of abortions has risen greatly. Although many people say it is the woman’s choice who gave them the right to take a life. Many women choose abortions believing that it is the easy way out, but are not actually informed of the sides affects and later regret their decision. Women need to be responsible for their actions; there are other options such as adoption. I have included links of Roe’s story of switching sides and also of women who regret their decisions along with statistics over the past years.
Responding to a. lee I would like to compliment you on picking something other then the war. I find that there are more issues then the war that need to be looked at during this upcoming presidential election. Taxes are a large deal and I would have to agree that something needs to be done. A national tax sounds nice, but would it work? Collecting money could be hard, and also many other forms of taxes would be cut. I do believe that everyone paying the same amount in taxes would be fair but we also can not cut social security without a replacement plan. I would have to agree this is a big issue that needs to be taken care of.
I believe that health care is the most important issue of the coming presidential election. While it is true that the war in Iraq is considered important by the highest percentage of voters, health care comes in second and has been a priority for voters for many years. While it may not seem like a current issue, or even an issue that requires immediate attention, the upcoming retirement of “Baby Boomers”, those born in the 1950s and 1960s, will put an enormous amount of pressure on Medicare. In fact, by 2010 the number of Medicare recipients is expected to increase by over 90% in comparison to 2001. An increasing amount of government funds will be needed to pay for Medicare. Basically, whether or not we decide the government should provide health care for all U.S. citizens, the proportion of the federal government budget devoted to health care will increase greatly.
The undeniable problems with our current health care system will also increase in the near future. The cost of prescription drugs is expected to increase an alarming 72% by 2010. With the costs of medical care rising, it is becoming harder and harder for families to be able to pay for the medical care they need. Americans currently spend an average of $5,267 on health care expenses every year. Despite the cost of health care in the U.S., the health care industry of the United States is evaluated as being only mediocre by the World Health Organization. The United States ranks 29th in life expectancy and 37th in child mortality rates. The U.S. is the only developed nation that does not provide universal health care to it’s citizens. 44.7 million Americans have no health insurance. Its hard to believe that in a country where so many have so much, others will denied basic medical care because of their financial situations.
Whether one thinks that further privatization or universal health care is the solution, health care is an important issue this election. Few candidates are suggesting that the U.S.’s health care system should be left alone, while last election the leading Democratic and Republican candidates agreed that it did not need changing. Overall, if the winning candidate in 2008 is able to uphold his or her campaign promises, our health care system will undergo dramatic changes. This election could truly lead to the creation of universal health care in the United States.
http://www.2facts.com.ezproxy.hclib.org/ICOF/temp/68967tempi1000510.asp
http://www.2facts.com.ezproxy.hclib.org/ICOF/temp/69015tempi0200960.asp
http://www.2facts.com.ezproxy.hclib.org/ICOF/Search/in080803.asp
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/pomr032907pkg_v2.cfm
Personally, I agree that the most important issue of the upcoming election is the Iraq war. However, one could define “most important” several different ways. In this case, I’m led to believe that “most important” is to be interpreted as the issue that the most voters will choose a candidate over, which I find to be a little disconcerting. Yes, the Iraq war is a very important issue, but I don’t find it practical to elect the president of one of the most powerful countries in the world over a piece of military and foreign policy that will only take up a fraction of the policy-making over the next four years of presidency. It will be a sizable fraction, but a fraction nonetheless.
That said, I have taken it upon myself to redefine my interpretation of the “most important” issue in the upcoming election by temporarily overlooking the war, if for nothing else but to add some variety to the blog. I have chosen instead to bring up the ever-present yet often overlooked problem of global warming.
My explanation as to why this is the most important issue is simple. Most, if not all of the other issues concern matters of government and policy. Global warming concerns the planet itself. No planet, no government.
Sadly, there are those who believe that global warming doesn’t exist. Fortunately, however, the presidential candidates are not among this number. There is general agreement among presidential hopefuls that global warming is a real and looming threat to the environment, and that measures must be taken to prevent further steps down earth’s rather self-destructive path. Two candidates, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, actually co-authored a bill aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Since there is agreement among the ranks, so to speak, that global warming is indeed a problem, one might wonder where exactly the issue is. Each candidate has a slightly different idea of how to go about slowing global warming. For example, Republican John McCain believes nuclear power is the answer to our problems. Republican Mitt Romney, on the other hand, believes in first achieving energy independence through more oil drilling.
Democrat Hillary Clinton reports that if she becomes president, she will create a “strategic energy fund” which takes profits from oil companies and puts them into developing new technology to aid in kicking the nation’s addiction to oil. Democrat Barack Obama supports a “cap and trade” system that will cap greenhouse gases and, in turn, allow pollution-heavy companies to invest in green companies.
I personally feel a stronger pull to the Democratic ideas, in general. I’m no expert, but it seems the best course of action is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible to slow the process of global warming. At the same time, reducing our country’s dependence on oil is always a good idea. If these two ideas can both be put into action with the next president, I think we’d all be better off.
"Presidential hopefuls take climate change seriously"
"Where the Republicans Stand: Global Warming"
"Where the Democrats Stand: Global Warming"
“It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is unlocked,” Republican candidate Ron Paul stated on the topic of illegal immigration. As of now, there are 12 million people in our country illegally. Illegal immigration is a growing problem in our country and the presidential candidates agree that some sort of reform is necessary. The candidates are divided, however, on how to deal with border security and the illegal immigrants currently residing in our country. This is why I believe that immigration is one of the most important issues of the election.
Illegal immigration represents a number of problems, the main ones addressed by the candidates being border security and the increasing number of illegal immigrants in our country. Congress has not passed legislation on the issue as many bills, such as the recent Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (2007), have failed due to divisions in opinion.
There is, indeed, a large division in opinions amongst the candidates. Their views run from seeing illegal immigrants as criminals who are taking away opportunities from Americans to seeing them as innocent victims in need of our help. The solutions are proportionally diverse, running from building a physical barrier along the border (Brownback and Hunter) to preventively aiding the economies of Latin America (Gavel). As for what to do with the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, there is also a wide range of ideas. Some candidates, such as Edwards, Kucinich, and Obama, want to help them become legal citizens of the United States and learn English, while those on the opposite side of the spectrum, such as Tancredo, T. Thompson, and Romney, advocate for their immediate deportation.
Personally, I think that building a fence along the border is irrational and would not solve the problem. I think that Mike Gavel’s proposed solution of helping Latin American nations prosper and grow would be the most effective. I also agree with many of the Democratic candidates ideas that the illegal immigrants currently here should be able to become citizens and should be able to get help in doing so. Many of them risked their lives crossing the border and I think that they should be given a chance to live in the United States. This problem has grown too large; deporting people is not the answer. I think that Mike Gavel accurately portrays this in saying that “to expel them would be national tragedy equaling the Trail of Tears.”
There is obviously a lot of controversy about this topic, which is an important issue in our country. Illegal immigration needs to be addressed, as the problem will only worsen if it is left alone. That is why I think that it will be one of the most important issues of the presidential campaign.
Sources:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/immigration_and_refugees/index.html
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S.1348:
http://www.gravel2008.us/issues
I would have to say that the most "pressing" issue in the upcoming election would have to be what the majority of people believe is the most important issue and that issue is the Iraq War. The Iraq War has been plaguing sveral countries for over four years and it has done alot of damage in many places. This is why most people believe that it is the most important issue in the upcoming election. I believe that this country and Iraq need a clear plan on how the U.S. is going to hopefully soon, withdraw its troops from Iraq. We need to support our troops and bring them home. But that is just my opinion.
Although a maority of people believe that the most important issue for the upcoming election is the war in Iraq, I however think that an election should not weigh so heavily on one issue. there are so many other important things that need to be seriously considered such as legal & illegal immigration policies, environmental issues, health care, gun control, marijuana laws, capitol punishment, abortion, stem cell research, social security, civil rights, and last that I can think of right now but definately not least gay & lesbian rights. Now as you should obviously know that small list didn't even make a dent in the much longer list of important issues. I believe there are so many more things that just one issue that need to be considered very seriously. Because honestly we really shouldn't want another president who is just going to invade another place like oh lets see Pakistan. *cough*...Obama...*cough*. But anywho, that is still just my opinion.
~Toasty ;)
oopsies...forgot this...
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm#War_+_Peace
Ok, so I have a two part response.
The first part is in response to whelan08. First off I find it very hard to believe that any woman who goes into an abortion clinic to get an abortion is uninformed of its consequences. I believe that women are very aware of the decision that they make when they get an abortion. Even if a woman regrets her decision later that is no reason for her right of choice to be taken away from her. If you think about it we make decisions everyday and think back on any given day and see if you made any regreted choices that day.Chances are that you can think of at least one thing that you regret. Now think again and what if that choice you made had been snatched away from you, I'm guessing you really wouldnt appreciate that. Here's a hypathetical example: You go to lunch one day and you over stuff yourself a little bit because its french toast sticks or whatever. As a result you get a stomach ache. So the next day the school announces that no one is allowed to eat lunch because they dont want anyone to get a stomach ache, I suspect you would most likely have a big problem with that, as would everyone else. Now I'm not saying that overeating and considering whether or not to keep your baby are in anywhere near the same ballpark of decision making but it all has to do with the right of choice, someone may choose to over stuff themselves just like these women choose to get or not get an abortion.
Ok so my second response is to Mia.
I just wanted to make a quick comment about the quote from Ron Paul. If anyone has ever seen Bowling for Columbine (if you haven't, you need to see it) you know that it goes over why America seems to have thousands of more deaths from gun fire than most countries. There are at least two things that we as Americans can learn from Candians, first, is what I believe is a much better prescription drug policy so to speak. The second is, having a society in which we do not have to lock our doors. At one point in the documentary Moore just decided to go to a Canadian neighborhood and just walk into random people's houses. All the houses he went to he just walked right in and that shows that the general mindset of these Canadians is that they are not afraid of their neighbors because they dont have any reason to fear them. If only we thought in that way we would not have to lock ourselves in from everyone around us, whether it be the people who really do live right next door or the people who are next door at our borders. Because by locking all of our doors and barricading everyone out, we are essentially imprisioning ourselves.(let's hope that everyone got that connection to the quote.)And lets hope that this country does not actually resort to the extremely sad idea of building actual physical barriers such as walls. (note: music video for Icky Thump by The White Stripes has a good example of this.) So lets all be friendly to our neighbors of the north AND the south. Peace and Love!
~Toasty ;)
Responding to a. lee I would like to compliment you on picking something other then the war. I find that there are more issues then the war that need to be looked at during this upcoming presidential election. Taxes are a large deal and I would have to agree that something needs to be done. A national tax sounds nice, but would it work? Collecting money could be hard, and also many other forms of taxes would be cut. I do believe that everyone paying the same amount in taxes would be fair but we also can not cut social security without a replacement plan. I would have to agree this is a big issue that needs to be taken care of. - whelan08
Under the FairTax proposal, which arguably has the biggest following, no: I do not believe it would work and still leave social welfare programs functioning.
Which is what a notable section of my argument pertained to...
Many women choose abortions believing that it is the easy way out, but are not actually informed of the sides affects and later regret their decision. - whelan08
Regarding the whole of your argument, but this section specifically, do you have any supporting data? What type side effects? Are you referring to deaths?
Of the 861,789 legal reported abortions in 1999, only 4 deaths resulted. This is approximately 0.0005 percent (CDC Abortion Surveillance, 2000).
According to the National Institutes of Health and the National Library of Medicine, both ectopic pregnancy and childbirth are more dangerous than legal abortion that is practiced by qualified doctors (NIH Article, The Mortality of Pregnancy).
The 2008 election is possibly the most relevant election our country has ever seen, much of that relevance coming from the conflict over the war in Iraq. According to a poll done by The Washington Post, the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 had 75% of the country’s support. Since then, that vast majority has dropped to a 25%. There are an estimated 160,000 troops currently in Iraq and a death toll of U.S. soldiers over 2,500. Those numbers alone are reason to withdraw.
One of the most demanding sacrifices for this war is the strain on our economy. At no point did our country have sufficient funds to start this supposed liberation, but somehow we’re still giving billions of dollars to the war effort instead of funding education, jobs, health and environmental research, debts, and so much more. The United Nations estimated a 56 billion dollar budget would be needed to restore Iraq, which is about one-eighth of the estimated 450 billion dollars that have already been given to the war, and that number is steadily rising. It’s estimated that by next year the cost of the Iraq war will surpass that of the sixteen year long Vietnam War. Not only are we spending money we do not have, but our occupation in Iraq is actually making the conditions worst. BBC polled 2,212 Iraqi citizens and roughly 50% of them said that conditions in Iraq have gotten worse since April 2003, before the invasion. 2.8 billion dollars given to sewage system reconstruction was not enough to repair damages done by the U.S. during combat. In early 2006, Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli admitted that only one fourth of the nation had drinkable water. Soon following that the U.S. government announced that only 40% of water-purification projects would even be completed. Hospitals and aid stations in cities across the country are inoperative because of U.S. artillery and air attacks and only 20 of the 150 medical clinics to be built in 2006 could be completed within the budget. One project that is being completed, however, is a 592 million dollar embassy including the largest swimming pool in Iraq, a gymnasium, a cinema, tennis courts, and several restaurants including popular US food chains. Who is this embassy for? The United States of America. And don’t worry; once the construction is complete, the site of this embassy, located in the “green zone”, will be getting it’s own personal power and water plants, so even if Iraqi citizens can’t get clean water, at least they can watch their liberators drink theirs.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/reconstruct/2006/0518deconstructed.htm
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6451841.stm
Hundreds of thousands of lives lost, hundreds of billions of tax dollars spent and still, the U.S government has yet to win the war in Iraq. There is no question that the war in Iraq will be the most important issue of the 2008 presidential election. Iraq has been the focus of our entire nation for the past five years. The Bush Administration has remained persistent in maintaining the necessity of winning this war. However, it is time to recognize that no matter how many more troops we send over or how much more money we put into this war, that the situation is a lost cause. It is out of our hands. In order for a stable democracy to be brought about in Iraq, the Iraqi government must be willing to work together and set their differences aside. Too many tensions between the religious factions exist for the United States to really be able to do any good. It is up to the Iraqis to build a stable government that will work for their country. The United States cannot impose democracy on Iraq. Democracy must be an accepted idea that people are willing to make work in order for it to be successful and stable. I won’t pretend that I always opposed the war. At the start, it seemed like a smart idea to crush Saddam Hussein’s evil regime of violence and corruption that he inflicted on his own people. Although taking Saddam out of power ended some of the problems in Iraq, we have created a whole new set of problems for the Iraqi people. They have had to live in a state of warfare for the past five years, many people having to flee their homes to take refuge in neighboring countries. Innocent people have been forced to reside in dreadful living conditions without electricity or clean-drinking water. My heart really goes out to these people and I only wish we could help them. However, our presence only creates more violence in their country. We must also not forget about the 3752 troops that we have lost during this war. We really cannot sacrifice any more lives in this hopeless attempt to bring about a stable democracy for Iraq. In this upcoming election, it is my belief that we need to elect a president that has a clear plan on how the United States should begin to pull out of Iraq. Currently the United States has about 160,000 troops occupying Iraq. It is time to begin withdrawing some of these troops gradually as we train the Iraqi forces to take over. We have done all we can do and really more than we should have ever done in the first place.
Sources:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/
http://www.washingtonpost.com
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/
I believe that one of the most important issues that should be addressed in the upcoming election is that of strengthening our economy through proper education of youth. As stated in the Forrester report, an estimated 3.3 million jobs will be outsourced by the year 2015 . These are not limited to factory jobs, but include those in Business, Finance , and Engineering. Why are these jobs being outsourced to other countries? Not only are the workers in places such as India and the Philippines willing to work as twice as hard for 1/5 the pay but they are very well educated professionals (Business Week). Many U.S. citizens are ignorant to the fact that an increasing number of our jobs are going to those overseas. I don't have a problem with those in other countries putting forth the time and effort it takes to qualify for the positions being outsourced. Actually, I commend them for pursuing a higher education. What I do have a problem with is the U.S sitting back while other countries step in to fill these jobs when we ourselves have those who could perform them with proper education. Shall we look at some statistics to better prove this point? Currently in the United States 42 million Americans are illiterate. As stated in the National Adult Literacy Survey 1 in every 4 teenagers drop out of high school . I believe that in order to survive in the global economy we must continue to educate our society to the utmost of our abilities.
It has been found that the annual economic growth rate of countries like China is at 10.7%. The United States economic growth rate is growing at the slow rate of 3.3%. These percents are reflected in the trade surplus as well. China had a 39.5 billion dollar surplus in 96' with the U.S. , and increased that number to 49.7 billion in 97'.Everywhere you look you can see forgein countries at work, wiether it be the car you drive or the computer screen your staring at right now.These countries are able to increase their economic wealth by first educating their society and then implementing it in the workforce.
I believe this is the most important issue in the campaign because education is key to success. As said by Aristotle, “Ill who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth.” If America wishes to maintain their status in the world they must provide a strong educational foundation for their youth. Intelligent youth grow into intelligent adults who then shape the nation for generations to come. If we hope to end things such as war, poverty, and corruption we must first educate those who will one day run society and make decisions that effect us all.
http://www.isop.ucla.edu/eas/statistics/CHN-US99-00.htm
www.nrrf.org
http://www.petersoninstitute.org/publications/papers/kirkegaard0204.pdf
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_05/b3969401.htm
I’m going to pick a different topic besides the Iraq war and say that social security is the most important issue in this year’s election. While the Iraq war is a very important issue, I think the 2006 midterms showed that people are tired of what is going on in Iraq. I believe this will lead to the winner of the 2008 election making changes in Iraq regardless of which party wins. Social security came up on everyone’s radar after the 2005 State of the Union Address but lately everyone’s main focus has been on the Iraq War. While this is probably deservedly so, I feel that the social security debate should be at the center of the next election because this issue is one where there is still time to be proactive and create a solution before things get out of hand. OASDI data shows that that we will not be able to pay benefits starting in the year 2042 at our current rate. Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office predicts that expenses will exceed tax revenues in 2020 and we will exhaust our trust funds by the year 2052. Once this point is reached, benefits would have to be paid at a rate 22% lower than current scheduled rates. The easiest thing to do would be to wait for a problem to get out of hand and then decide to fix it. I think the smartest thing to do is to fix a problem before it even begins. I believe that we need to start at least proposing legislation and decide what kind of sacrifices need to be made to prevent a social security disaster. As one of my article states, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said that “the United States will have to choose among higher taxes, fewer dollars for other programs, lower spending on entitlement programs, and a sharply higher budget deficit _ or some combination of all those.” While it is unlikely a highly accepted solution can be crafted overnight, we can least start our way towards one. We can start to take those first few steps through the 2008 election.
Sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102300766.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100401596_pf.html
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/II_project.html#wp105724
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=6064&type=0&sequence=0
Hey everyone!
I think the most important issue is global warming. I also think that the Iraq war is a very important issue, but the war won't last forever. Finding a solution to global warming would affect our future the most. Each candidate has their own plan for Iraq, and if you look at it logically, all of them would probably help to some extent (even if you disagree with them). Global warming is a more important issue because if we don't start to do something about it, it will continually get worse. We need to not focus on issues that just involve the war and foreign policy and take a look at other problems, like global warming or health care. I also thought that a lot of people would comment on the war, so it feels kind of nice to change things up a bit.
The two main parties have differnt views on global warming. One opinion is that some people don't believe that global warming is true. Only 54% of conservative Republicans agree that global warming is a problem and 81% of liberal Democrats agree. Another issue is whether or not global warming should be a highly prioritized issue for the election in 2008. 23& of Republicans agree as opposed to 48% of Democrats.
All the candidates in the 2008 race, Democratic or Republican, seem to have some sort of view on the issue of global warming. For example, John McCain (R) and Barack Obama (D) co-wrote a bill designed to greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Hilary Clinton (D) stated, "...I strongly believe...to slow and ultimatly reduce emissions of carbon dioxide...that contribut to climate change." John Kerry (D) also stated he wants to introduce a bill to "quantify the cost of carbon in some way." Finally, Al Gore (D) released a documentary he called, "An Inconvienent Truth" about the changes he has already noticed contributed to global warming.
The views I would support are the ones from the Democratic candidates because I believe that they are taking a more accurate and faster approach to combat global warming.
In conclusion, I think global warming will be one of the most important issues in the race. The candidates need to focus on other issues than war and foreign policy because finding a solution to global warming is important to our future. If we do nothing about it, global warming will get worse and worse.
http://www.people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=303
http://www.wpherald.com/articles/3107/2/Global-warming-expected-to-be-2008-election issue/Climate-change-major-concern-of-Congress.html
I feel that the war in Iraq is the most important issue in the 2008 election. It is unfortunate that we are not focused more on domestic issues but it is likely that the candidates stance on Iraq is what the voters will care about most. Because we have 160,000 troops in Iraq, many families are anxious to have their loved ones returned to them. In addition, war related deaths have doubled in 2007 from last year’s total. Sixty – one percent of Americans are not happy with how the war in Iraq is going.
My position on the war in Iraq is to withdraw the troops from Iraq in a timely manner. A deadline needs to be set for this to be done; otherwise the decision to withdraw the troops will just keep being put off. In addition to the cost of human lives, the war on Iraq is costing us billions of dollars. This year alone, the United States has spent 170 billion dollars on Iraq. This hefty amount of money could have been spent on domestic issues if we had pulled out of Iraq sooner. The United States will continue pouring large sums of money into Iraq until the troops leave. After the occupation of Iraq is over, then this money can go into Social Security, health care, and education, among many other aid programs for the betterment of American lives.
Sources: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/11/AR2007091100738.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/11/911.poll/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/07/us.iraq/index.html?#cnnSTCOther1
There are many issues that are being considered in this upcoming election. I believe the most pressing and important of these issues is the need for a reform of the Social Security System. You may be asking “Why is this issue important? I’m not anywhere close to retiring.” Well the issue of Social Security reform will affect everyone in America especially our generation.
In 1950, there were 16.5 workers putting money into the Social Security System for every one beneficiary of Social Security. Now that ratio of workers to beneficiaries has dropped to 3.3 to one. This is because largest generation in American history, the baby boomers, are beginning to retire by the millions. When all of these people retire, the worker to beneficiary ratio will only get worse. In fact, this ratio will drop to two to one over the next forty years. There will not be enough people working and putting money into the system to support all of the retirees. This will put a massive strain on the system we have in place. All of these new retirees will drain the Social Security System of money and eventually benefits will have to be cut to beneficiaries. The beneficiaries who will have the most cuts on their benefits is Generation X which is our generation.
Whether it is giving the option of investing their Social Security money into the Stock Market, or creating private accounts for people to use, this problem needs to be fixed as soon as possible. The best way to address this issue is by electing someone who has a good plan for in the next election.
Sources:
http://www.ssa.gov/
I, too, believe that the deciding issue in the 2008 presidential election will be the stance of the candidates on the war with Iraq. In an ABC News/Washington Post poll, 35% of 1,002 adults chosen from a nationwide sample said that the Iraq war was the single most important issue in their choice for president, with the next largest issues (healthcare/other) winning not even half the percentage. It was also listed in a separate poll as the one issue that should be the top priority for the federal government to deal with in the next year. According to CNN, “candidates are learning that their political fortunes may be tied to events taking place more than 6,000 miles away.”
As for the potential candidates, they have varied opinions on the war and what should be done, though many agree that now is the time to withdraw the troops. I found that opinions on this issue seemed to be a bit divided along party lines.
All of the potential Republican candidates but one, Ron Paul, initially voted in favor of military force in Iraq, though some of them have changed their minds since then. About half of the potential Democratic candidates initially voted for the war, but the majority of them now disagree and want to begin troop withdrawal as soon as possible.
I personally believe that the best thing to do would be to begin troop withdrawal and to end this war that has cost so many lives.
Sources:
http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.iraq.html
Please forgive my twice-deleted post - I appear to be technologically inept sometimes.
This is a response to whelan08's post:
I would have disagree completely, I advocate that a woman has every right to dictate what goes on in her own body, and that right belongs to no one else. As a female, if another person feels that they have the right to decide what goes on in the bodies of women across America, I would be personally offended and feel that they would be overstepping their boundaries of their own body and crossing over to mine. There are multiple situations in which I strongly believe that abortion should be applicable, and I will elaborate later on.
And to agree with 'The Almighty Toasty', I cannot believe that women have abortions completely uninformed what it is, what it does, and what might happen. No medical professional is allowed to perform ANYTHING on anyone without informing them. The abortion process is not like a step-in clinic where you can be out in 15 minutes withough a consultation - in Minnesota, there is a 24 hour waiting period between the time in which a woman requests an abortion, and the time in which it is performed.
In my opinion, to say that abortion in all cases should be outlawed is a cruel and insenstive remark. Abortion as a medical resource is a necessity in hospitals across the country, as some pregnancies need to be terminated to save the life of the mother. When maternal medical conditions such as kidney failure, heart failure, serious bleeding, Lupus, and diabetes are severe, a pregnancy has the potential to cause fatality. Preventing a woman from having a life-saving abortion can be equated with restricting life-saving penicillin from a patient with a fatal infection.
Also, I strongly advocate that abortion should always be an option for victims of violent rape, incest, and sexual assault. If a woman is forced to give birth to a baby conceived through violent means, the psychological effects could be damaging on both the mother and the child. In my opinion, aborting a mass of cells in its early stages is a better choice than bringing a child into the world to be possibly unloved, abused, or abandoned.
In addition, I believe that making abortion illegal will certainly not halt the existence of it. As someone concerned with the health of women (you mentioned 'side effects'), you must be aware that abortions performed by non-professionals are much more likely to lead infection, debilitating injury, and even death. However, an abortion performed in the clean and sterile environment of a clinic or hospital by a licensed professional has a much lower chance of leading to these injuries, and ensures additional follow-up visits on the physical and emotional health of the client. The illegality of the act will not prevent women from resorting to what they personally feel that they need to do, and 'back-alley abortions' will pervade society with more vigor than they currently do.
And to remark on your last point, that adoption is a healthy alternative to abortion, I offer only one point - that there are already too many children waiting for the perfect parents to adopt them. And of those waiting to be adopted, there are over 119,000 older children waiting as well. These children are less likely to be adopted than young infants (parents generally are more interest in raising a child from infancy) and are more likely to suffer the emotional effects of rejection and a loss of self-worth.
I do agree with you one on part, that women should not be careless with their actions - I don't believe that the day after pill should be used as a form of birth control. If women are to have choice of the what goes on in their bodies, I feel that they are also obligated to be responsible for themselves. This means utilizing the wide variety of birth control options available and making a strong effort not to get pregnant if they are not prepared for the emotional, physical, and financial effects of a child.
For information, I consulted:
My mother, an obstetrician/gyneacologist
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-03-08-common-ground-adoption_x.htm
The issue of bringing home troops currently fighting the war in Iraq is by far one of the most talked about and debated issues for the upcoming election. I believe that though the war should never have started in the first place, we can not just pull out troops. Iraq is virtually devastated and still has no effective government in place. If the US truly believes that the reasons for going to war are justified, then we need to follow through and stabilize Iraqi military before leaving. Currently promises are being made for the removal of our troops as soon as possible but there has not been much progress on this.
I was watching the Petraeus report on Iraq on C-SPAN tonight and found it very interesting how many politicians are very against the war. Like Sophie said, the approval rating pre-war for taking military action was over 80%. It makes me question why we are still involved and not making greater efforts as a country to leave a war that most of our government does not even support. One thing that was said in support to the war that was said by General Petraeus is that although he does want troops to be able to be pulled out or cut service time in the Middle East, the US has to accomplish the military tasks at hand before it can be done. Our military needs to step up and make sure the Iraqi army can protect the country and be self sufficient without the US there to back it up. I would love to see the troops come home and our country to be rid of this burden of Iraq, but it is also important to finish what we started in order to keep credibility in the Middle East as well as the world. As much as the circumstances stink, we need to just suck it up, get the job done and at least put up a united front over this issue.
Like many other people, I think the war in Iraq will be a very important issue in the 2008 presidential election. There are many people writing about the war in Iraq, so I decided to write about illegal immigration, another issue that I think is very important. This is an important issue because it is occurring on such a large scale. According to a Newsweek article, in 2006 there was an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in America. Of those people, 50,000 to 75,000 were “criminal aliens”, which means people who were convicted of local, state or federal crimes. In addition, around 590,000 illegal immigrants were “fugitive aliens”, meaning people who did not go to their immigration hearings or did not follow court orders to leave America. In another article from Newsweek in August of 2007, it states that 3,000 illegal immigrants enter Arizona alone everyday, with 500,000 illegal immigrants living there.
Due to such large numbers of illegal immigrants here, I think this is an issue Americans cannot avoid. In a Quinnipiac University poll in 2006, nine out of ten people said illegal immigration was a serious problem. Also, from a Time Magazine poll in 2006, three-fourths of American citizens said America is not doing enough to secure our borders. People in America feel very differently and strongly about this issue, and that is why I think this will be such a big issue in the upcoming election.
I personally feel this is very important because our borders are not secure, so we do not know who is coming into our country and who is in our country. I do not think we can maintain a strong defense if we do not know who is in our country. The position I support on this issue is acknowledging this problem and finding a realistic solution to prevent more illegal immigrants from coming into America. I think a good solution would be better border control or identification cards for American citizens that are more secure. As I learned while doing research, many people can receive driver’s licenses in certain states very easily. I am looking for a candidate who recognizes that illegal immigration is a problem, and has a real plan to deal with it. I would also like to hear different plans for what will happen to the illegal immigrants already in this country, I know there are many ideas right now. I do not favor granting all illegal immigrants amnesty, but I would like to hear different plans that could realistically be implemented and would deal effectively with the situation.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13880173/site/newsweek/
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7305528/site/newsweek/
www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8GK40R09&show_article=1
Global warming is the most important issue in the upcoming election. I have noticed that the majority of posters have stated that the War in Iraq is most pressing, but I disagree. If one accepts that the War has become less about protecting our nation and more about protecting our oil interests (as well as trying to save face in our inevitable, clumsy exit), one can see that the war is loosely related to global warming. One of the reasons the USA entered Iraq was to maintain the status quo and try to subsist on gasoline as long as possible. This objective is detrimental to any efforts to find alternative fuels. We are wasting valuable tax dollars in Iraq that could very easily have funded scientific research on improving our current climate conditions.
One problem that arises is that we are faced with a problem similar to the chicken and the egg paradox. Which one should be addressed first? If we find a peaceful, graceful end to the Iraqi War (unlikely) we can focus our national resources fully on the problem of climate change. Our other option is to focus on global warming first, primarily because it affects far more spheres of our - not to mention the world’s – lives than the Iraqi War. Although we should focus on climate change, I believe we should work towards a peaceful end to the War at the same time.
I think that the climate change deserves our immediate attention, because, if left untouched, it will radically change our economy, environment, and many lives will be lost. I believe the economic issues that will arise are the most important because economic problems will cause widespread suffering – both physical and mental – for the USA and other economies that rely on the USA for trade, labor, or stability (basically all other countries).
An article in NPR talked about the environmental effects of climate change on one Alaskan town. It detailed how the town’s vitality depends on the development of natural gas and how climate change may have changed their local coasts. With the warming up of the ocean’s waters, whales have changed their migratory patterns and now are congregating by the small Alaskan town. Eventually, the whales will not have enough food and die out. This in turn disrupts the predatory chain and leaves a certain species to grow without restraint. This imbalance in nature will eventually destroy many organisms. For example, polar bears’ populations will decrease by 2/3 in 50 years and be completely gone in 100 years if we don’t change our habits. This may seem distant and unimportant to many, but it is important to realize the implications of extinctions such as changing environments and food supplies for humans.
*I believe my sources for this paragraph to be fairly unbiased, because they come from prominent news networks and seem objective*
The economic impact is just as well known. Anyone who drives a car can recall the massive gasoline price inflation after Hurricane Katrina. Scientists have said that Katrina was considerably worse because of changing climate issues that swelled the storm. The storm destroyed many of New Orleans’ pipelines and didn’t let much gas into the country. Stable demand mixed with low supply created very high prices. Trade disruptions such as these, as well as droughts and floods that affect crops and other industries, will negatively impact the world’s economy.
Certainly, global warming should be at the top of everyone’s to do list. What will people remember in fifty years, a flawed foreign policy choice or a permanently different world? More importantly, what will affect them more? You know the answer.
Bibliography-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2642773.stm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14310558&ft=1&f=1003
First, we must look at what the definition of the ‘most important’ issue in the question posed to us. If by ‘most important’ we mean what voters will largely base their votes upon, then I agree with the majority of the class that the war in Iraq will be the most important issue in the war, as it has severely polarized the nation. However, I believe that the most important issue goes beyond the war in Iraq and addresses the beliefs that the United States of America is supposedly grounded in. I strongly believe that the most pressing issues in our country can be neatly grouped together underneath the umbrella terms of 'civil liberties' and 'civil rights'. While similar, the two are not identical. Civil liberties are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, while civil rights are not enumerated in the Bill of Rights and they pertain more to groups of people, e.g. minorities (African-Americans, women, gays)(1). With this in mind, we can analyze what issues are at hand and why they are of the utmost importance to the 2008 election.
While the Bill of Rights is one of the most sacrosanct documents in American history, civil liberties are being shunted to the side in the alleged interest of ‘national security’. Bush has suspended the right of habeas corpus (the right to be presented with a reason for detention and the right for a judge to determine if that reason for detention is legally valid), for anybody deemed an “unlawful enemy combatant” by the administration (2). This has effectively eliminated the check and balance system that the courts have on the executive branch, as the courts no longer have a right to check the power of the President if he determines somebody an enemy combatant. Voters must bring up this rampant abuse of executive power, and voters must demand a condemnation of these actions by possible candidates.
Civil rights are also being quashed, especially in terms of gay rights. The religious right, touting moral superiority, are saying that gay marriage is an abomination condemned by the Bible. Legislation based solely on religious beliefs a violation of the spirit of the Constitution. Furthermore, nobody has brought up a strong economical or feasible reason why gay marriage should not be allowed, in fact, economists have shown that allowing gay marriage with accompanied partner benefits would be good for the economy. The Williams Institute, of the UCLA School of Law, writes “partner benefits increase job satisfaction and job retention, reducing recruitment and training costs for companies.” Also, “spending on new weddings alone would generate $2 billion for businesses in the wedding industry”(3). Getting money back into the economy by spending it on goods and services is a way to revitalize a sluggish economy.
The United States of America is based on freedom of choice and freedom from oppression. The most important election issue simply must be the fact that these choices and freedoms are being taken away from the American people.
-Silas Berkowitz
1.uspolitics.org
2.http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/habeuscorpus.htm
3.http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/press/GayMarriageGoodfortheEconomy.html
Although the war in Iraq is arguably the most pressing and urgent issue to focus on in the 2008 election, I believe there is another matter the American people need to address. In accordance with Liz, I too believe that global warming is the most important issue to focus on in the next election.
Global warming is the most pressing issue simply because it is an international issue. As Liz put it, “no planet, no government.” A crisis concerning the global community must be addressed first.
Many democratic candidates have supplied different courses of action to tackle global warming.Senator Clinton (D-NY) cosponsored the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007, which promises a 30% cut of carbon emissions from 2000 to 2050 with a system of “tradable allowances” and has always advocated to stop climate change. Senator Obama (D-IL) also cosponsored the act. The John Edwards’ campaign was the first to publicize that it is “completely carbon neutral” by taking a portion of the campaign budget to purchase carbon offsets that support alternative energy production.
As many democratic nominees have taken steps against global warming and introduce plans for action, the republicans remain timid on adopting the issue of global warming. Rudy Giuliani acknowledges global warming, but fails to recognize the effect human activity has on the environment. He remains vague and hazy as to what needs to be done. Mike Huckabee flips back and forth on his view of global warming, recognizing it first as a “spiritual issue” then believing we need to move “rapidly towards energy sources that don’t have a greenhouse gas effect.” Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is the most outspoken republican on global warming. He first introduced the Climate Stedwardship Act in 2003. He recognizes global warming as a important issue and has taken the most steps as a republican to attack it.
Although some fail to recognize global warming as a prominent issue, our presidential hopefuls have and are taking steps to tackle the pressing issue. Being an important issue to many presidential nominees, one would hope others will acknowledge the crisis at hand and take the necessary steps to decrease their contribution to global warming.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13392/#biden
http://wpherald.com/articles/3107/1/Global-warming-expected-to-be-2008-election-issue/Presidential-hopefuls-take-climate-change-seriously.html
Responding to Sophie's response on my post I do agree that an abortion due to rape and to save the mothers life are fair.
I agree that the Iraq war is a very important issue. However, I don't think it should be the dominating factor in the election. Ideally, we should look closer to home before concentrating on the problems of other countries (something that might have prevented us from getting into this war in the first place). I believe that health care is the most important issue in the 2008 election.
Our population is aging. The first of the "baby boom" generation is reaching 65. This means that we'll need better geriatric care. Additionally, younger generations are becoming increasingly unhealthy. The obesity rate for children under 18 is nearly 1/3 in some parts of the country. We may be the first generation in history to live shorter lives than our parents. With increased obesity comes increased heart problems, diabetes, and other diseases, often at younger ages than ever before.
Health care is becoming more and more important, but it is not becoming more and more affordable. Quite the opposite: the 2006 Census counted 47 million uninsured Americans. Millions more are under-insured. The average middle-class family cannot afford health insurance unless their job provides it to them; even then, some families can't spare the deductible. Our system of insuring people based on place of employment is unsustainable.
Many countries such as Britain, France, and Canada have health care that is both cheaper and better quality than ours. In world rankings, the quality of U.S. health care has actually gone down over the years, while our costs have gone up.
Speaking as the daughter of someone whose jobs do not provide her any sort of health care, I understand how stressful it can be. My mother often says that she "can't afford to get sick." She means this both in terms of lost income and doctor visits. Thankfully, nothing really catastrophic like a terminal illness or an accident has happened. I can easily see how people go into debt and even bankruptcy trying to pay hospital bills.
It's sad when the most advanced country in the world cannot figure out a way to get all its citizens quality health care.
Grill Candidates About Their Health-care Plans
Kaiser Foundation Study: Americans Paying More For Health Care
Universal Or Single Payer Health Plan?
Bleak Findings on Health Insurance
Oh...this is Kendra.
I believe that education is the most important issue in the upcoming election. With the newspapers and the general public drawing attention to foreign affairs I believe that the education of America’s future is an often overlooked yet extremely important issue. The education of America’s youth determines the effectiveness of our leaders in the future
America needs to support its’ future in the quest for knowledge. It is obvious in the current market for jobs that a high school education is necessary and in most cases some kind of higher education is necessary. However, in the current state of affairs a college education is out of the question for many qualified students. In the 05-06 school year public colleges reported on average they raised their tuition 7 percent. This is more than double the inflation rate and the average rate of wage increase. With this in mind we disqualify many of those who have the potential for greatness in the future. By making college unaffordable to qualified candidates we eliminate possibilities for greatness not only for them but for our country and the world.
Currently candidates have spoken out with answers including making college in general more affordable by increasing federal aid. I believe this is one of the most direct and efficient solutions. Senators Obama and Clinton have both openly endorsed this idea. Senator Obama also proposes that we do more to protect student borrowers. This refers to the many students that will take out loans to pay for college. By encouraging them to use the more efficient Direct Loan system and using the savings created by this system to grant aid to the students he relieves some of the burden of repayment that the student will one day be faced with.
It is clear to me that issues like foreign affairs and global warming will still be present in ten years when our generation begins to take leadership positions. In order to effectively and progressively solve these problems our generation must be educated, we must be given the tools in order to build a better world one day. Without access to higher education our generation will be ill equipped to deal with the important problems facing us now and that will face us in the future
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/050905/5plan.htm
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/
http://www.ontheissues.org/Education.htm#
This is a response to Anthony's post...
I disagree with the idea of a national sales tax for several reasons; the main one is that it's regressive. Lower-income families spend a proportionally larger amount of their income than higher-income families do. Wealthy families have the ability to simply save amounts that probably equal what a poorer family would earn in a year.
The second reason is that the system would be vulnerable to abuse. Many people have the ability to act as both a household and a business. Since business-to-business transactions would not be taxed, one could buy a house acting as a business and later sell it acting as a household, paying no tax at all. Retail sales taxes are also commonly evaded; forcing businesses to comply would take a considerable amount of resources. Additionally, many people would simply shop online from abroad to avoid the tax.
FairTax suggests that only a 23% tax rate would be needed; however, this does not take noncompliance into account. Other estimates place the rate at 34% just to replace the income tax and fund cash grants under the plan. However, the replacement of the gift tax, estate tax, and payroll tax, as well as taking into account the probability of noncompliance, the costs may balloon to over 100%.
The tax would also be extremely expensive for state and local governments to carry out. Five states currently have no sales tax, so there would still need to be some sort of federal agency.
And for those that advocate simply lowering taxes altogether, my warning is: you get what you pay for.
So...now that I've written that novel...
Is the Tax System Beyond Reform?
Hi!
I believe the most important issue of the 2008 election is the how to restore the image of the United States throughout the world. It doesn’t matter whether you agree or disagree with the WOT and the War in Iraq. The fact of the matter is that the measures taken by the Bush administration to secure America after 9-11 have been received negatively in most parts of the world. In fact, Newsweek reported in June 2007 that a majority of the countries polled believed that China would “act more responsibly in the world than America.” How does a regime that denies the very notions of basic liberty look more responsible than a country founded on liberal ideals?
The central problems arise in Washington’s relationship with the Muslim world both abroad and in the United States. First off, racial profiling in America is rampant and has been on the rise for Arabs since 9-11. It is very likely that a person with an Arabic name or who fits the profile is checked extra carefully at the airport. Besides racism being a horrible thing, the Muslim community in America is the most affluent and assimilated in the world. Whereas in Europe, Muslim communities live in urban “ghettoes” and frequently express their dissatisfaction violently, a whopping 70% of Muslim Americans believe America is a country where you can get ahead if you try. Recent reports have shown that such stigmatization leads to the radicalization of the Muslim youth but the U.S. is still considered infertile grounds for homegrown terrorism. If we want to keep it that way, it is critical that we do not alienate this very important part of our society.
Iraq is obviously one of the main reasons the Muslim world doesn’t like us, but besides that, the reason we are not perceived well in the eyes of Muslims worldwide is because many Americans have a very narrow view of the Islamic world. The American majority associates the Islamic world with religious extremism and terrorism. This has led the government to justify dehumanizing many suspected Arabs and deny them due process when they are being detained in Guantanamo Bay. They are treated inhumanely and tortured for information. Now, everyone knows that most people will say anything in order to make the pain stop. Besides this, I would like to point out that the KKK is probably not a good representation of all Christians in America. As such, the violent and radical Jihadists you see on television aren’t your everyday Muslims. Just like there are sects in the Christian religion, so are there in Islam. The Sunnis and Shiites don’t get along too well and neither do Iran and Al Qaeda. Just as Nixon realized during the Cold War that not all the communist states agreed with each other, the next president will have to acknowledge the complexity of Islam and the role that it plays in shaping the policy of the Middle East as well as the United States. As this world becomes increasingly interconnected with globalization, I would vote for the candidate who will be able to respond to threats of global conflict by being a leader of international goodwill.
Bibliography: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19001200/site/newsweek/page/0/
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19876834/site/newsweek/
I believe the most pressing issue in the 2008 presidential election involves the War in Iraq, but is not limited to the war. Very intertwined with the war, is the issue of the United State’s foreign relations with countries in and outside of the Middle East. Since the Bush Administration, the United States has lost many allies throughout the world. As quoted in the New York Times, “The most recent results by the Pew Global Attitudes Project show that the United States continues to be held in low regard in Europe. In a 2007 survey in Germany, the proportion of respondents with a favorable opinion of the United States fell to 30 percent, from 60 percent in 2002; and in France the percentage with a good impression of the United States fell to 39 percent, from 62 percent.” This is not an international popularity contest, however; we are living and competing in a global market. It is vital for our future success as a nation that our next leader re-forms international bridges that have been broken.
Improving our foreign relations will give us future military support if need be outside of efforts in Iraq. The War in Iraq, militaristically speaking, has isolated us from much outside support. Because of having to fund and fight the war alone we are overstretched in our military and in an enormous deficit—nine trillion dollars. This is not a beneficial place for us to be.
Having a good public relations-related agenda in our nation’s next president will put us as a nation in a favorable position to deal and work with the upcoming challenges our government and world are sure to face. For problems are certain to arise, but having a leader that can adequately handle a problem in a way that does not isolate us from many prominent nations, will allow the United States to return to being a respected nation internationally.
Liana Bratton
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/11/world/europe/11europe.html
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Iraq-Next-President.html
I, unlike many others, do not believe that the Iraq war will be the most important issue in the upcoming election. Very few people in the country, 31%, want to be at war, and most candidates can see this so it is not really an issue (1). People will not be looking at issues in this election, they will be looking at which candidate has the strongest character. The candidate that will win is the candidate that is able to make the people believe that they can protect America without offending anybody. Of the two leading candidates, Rudy Guliani and Hillary Clinton, polls put Hillary in the lead (2). This is most likely due to the fact that she has been through some troubles in her life and has shown strength to get through them. She also shows the people that she does not believe more people need to die to protect America, which is exactly what people want to hear. Guliani showed much strength through the 9/11 attacks, but he has not showed the peaceful nature that people are also looking for in candidates’ character. The Iraq conflict is the main thing that people seem to care about now; it is the main thing in the news, and it is the main topic discussed by the people, but the real question is not what the candidate will do in Iraq, but how they will make the people feel when they do it. So it is not really an election of issues, but it is an election of character; whichever candidate can make the people believe that they are strong, but just will win the day.
1: http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/ssi/polls/postpoll_072307.html
2: http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm
Like many of my fellow classmates, I too agree that the war in Iraq is the most important issue facing 2008 presidential candidates. The war is a very controversial issue that requires attention, money, troops, and foreign relations. But the fact remains is whether we pull out or not, we will face some challenging issues in the decade ahead.
I find at this current time I support the war. I realize the importance of invading Iraq and why it is necessary for us to stay there. My main reason for staying is to fight terrorism head on; we believe that al-Qaeda forces are in Iraq and trying to finish the US off. My second reason for staying is the fact that Iraq needs us, whether they want to admit it or not. According to the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq and the GAO, Iraq at this current time would be unable to support itself and a stable government. With the US pulling out, it seems clear to me that Iraq would be on the brink of a long civil war between terrorists and civilians, Sunni and Shiites.
It is not that I don’t sympathize with the loss of troops or the amount of money that has been cut from specific projects to support the war, but truth is that this war reflects our country as a whole and it needs special attention.
By pulling out I assume that foreign countries as well as terrorists will view us as weak rather than a superpower. In that scenario, it could be very likely that attacks would be put on US soil. For that, I am scared and uncertain what would happen to America.
If we remain in Iraq and continue to fight terrorism, we can hope that our powerful and well-meaning country can defeat its evil. Our current theory of a “surge” in Baghdad has had some success according to General Petraeus (top military commander in Iraq). He claims that major changes in the war threaten any of the progress the US has made and that there is “a realistic chance of achieving our objective in Iraq.” If there is anyone to trust in this hazy war it would be Mr. Petraeus, he is the man that is on the battleground of Iraq everyday losing his men. By battling it out we come that much closer to shutting down terrorism and reclaiming ourselves as a world superpower.
http://english.aljazeera.net/
http://media.npr.org/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/
http://www.nytimes.com/
“Money doesn’t grow on trees.” If we’ve heard it once, we’ve heard it a trillion times. The federal government’s national debt has reached an alarming $8.78 trillion (that is $8,780,000,000,000) and it is my opinion that the upcoming election is the ideal time to reconsider and reconstruct economic downturn. Incorporating the issues of social security reform, military expenses, and health care alike, adjusting our national debt is the first, most basic and comprehensive step to take.
When President Bush took office in 2000, America’s national debt amounted to $5.6 trillion. Through the course of his terms as president, that number has increased by nearly 50% and will continue to rise at its present rate. The deficit for 2007 alone is projected to amount to $158 billion. With the baby boom generation eligible for social security in 2008 and Medicaid in 2011, in combination with the generally rising costs of health care and increasing life expectancy rates, the debt incurred will likely be unsustainable.
Present costs are not being tailored to fit these astonishing debts. Though the Senate moved for a $9 trillion deficit cap in 2006, national spending continues to increase. Interest on our vast debt is our third largest cost! For the upcoming fiscal year, beginning October first, President Bush has allotted an additional $145 billion for costs in Iraq, as well as an 11% increase in non-war Pentagon spending, raising their budget to $481.4 billion.
As it relates to the 2008 campaign, current talk of tax cuts and reforms divide the parties. Eight of eight featured democrats on CNN’s campaign coverage opposed the President’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and are currently in opposition of his proposed tax cut extensions through 2010. Should these tax cuts be executed, another $1.6 trillion would be amounted over the next ten years. Giving tax breaks today will simply increase the burden of tomorrow. The key issues and goals that candidates are forming their platforms around will not be accomplishable with a multi-trillion dollar deficit. The repair of this burden should therefore be a priority in the upcoming election.
Sources:
www.cbo.gov
www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/27/pysk.walker/index.html
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyID=5282521
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?F=/c/a/2007/02/06/MNGLKNVHFO1.DTL
www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html
Along with many of my peers, I also believe that the Iraq War will drive this coming presidential election. Although I don't believe it should be the most important issue of who we as a nation are going to select as our president, I see it as almost inevitable that most of the citizens of our country will be focused on that issue. One reason for this is the extent of media coverage on the issue. Almost every day when I open up the Star Tribune, there is at least one article relating to the war. How can anyone say that the war is not an important issue on the minds of Americans if we are constantly reminded of it every day? Simply visit Star Tribune's website (www.startribune.com) and search the words "iraq war" and you will receive nearly 1450 results dating back nearly every day since 9/11.
My views on this issue are spotty; I'm a bit uninformed on the specifics of the consequences of extended occupation of Iraq versus an immediate pullout. I do believe, however, that at the current time we have dug ourselves a hole that we cannot now climb out of, meaning that we must stay in Iraq and attempt to salvage any bit of dignity this country has left relating to foreign affairs and to salvage Iraq's weak government we tried to set up for them. Many people have extremely differing opinions on this issue, and my ultimate hope is that our next president can think of a solution to this dilemma which call the Iraq War.
http://pd.startribune.com/sp?aff=20&keywords=%22iraq+war%22&start=1
http://www.americanfreepress.net/04_06_04/Media_Coverage/media_coverage.html
First of all, I would like to address whelan08’s post about Roe vs. Wade, and to the almighty toasty!’s comment on the issue. Abortion is a problem and a hotly debated issue in the United States. It cannot be belittled to a hypothetical situation involving French toast and stomachaches. It is a messy, thousand-sided, relentless issue that, quite frankly, will probably never be completely resolved. Abortion involves so many opinions and beliefs and questions that it’s hard to take one side. Yet, in our dualistic society, there are two; Pro-Choice or Pro-Life. I personally am pro-choice because of several reasons, many of which involve my religious beliefs and my basic philosophies on life. I just want to say that having an abortion does not make you irresponsible, nor does it mean you made a mistake, or…anything else really. It means that a woman is pregnant and she needs to not be. There are so many circumstances that end in abortion that I think it is quite impossible to make one solid judgment on all of it (pro-life). For example, what if a girl was raped… does that mean she HAS to have the baby? Was it her mistake to make? Was she being irresponsible? And if she couldn’t have an abortion, what if she doesn’t want to send this child to a stranger’s home? Like I said, there are too many situations and circumstances in order to make such a solid ruling. I think that abortion is a woman’s choice. It is her pain to deal with, her decision to make, and her mistake to mend. I don’t think that it is anyone else’s right to choose what a woman is going to do with such a life-changing issue; it’s the woman’s choice.
In relation to the 2008 election, I think the real questions we should be asking here are; what do people feel most strongly about? What is costing us the most money right now? What gets the most media coverage? What has been sending the current GOP swirling down the craphole? The war in Iraq. 2008 isn’t about taxation or abortion. This is about figuring out what U.S. citizens are sacrificing their lives for, how we got there in the first place, and how the hell we’re going to get out. Six years ago September 11th shook the United States to its core. Americans demanded an explanation. Something had to be done. So, we entered into a war that seemed pretty much called for at the time…and now we’re re-thinking things. Remember C. Wright Mills’ little philosophy about doing something, even if it’s not a good choice, is better than doing nothing at all? Hmm..
Six years later, we finally started to realize that maybe the Iraq war isn’t such a good idea. Bush’s approval ratings are at an all time low, the Americans are sick of seeing their family members and friends get shipped off into god knows where, and the troop morale is bottoming out. One poll found that fifty-two percent of Soldiers reported low or very low personal morale and seventy-two percent reported low or very low unit morale.
Not only are our friends and families going to war, so are our personal paychecks. Congress has allocated at least $150 billion for the war, and we’re sick of paying the money. Not to mention that the rest of the world isn’t exactly jumping at the idea to help us out. British resentment towards the war has been growing, and Tony Blair has been made a mockery of in all sorts of online videos and jokes.
Comparable to the abortion question, the whole Iraq situation is a quagmire. I’m not saying we need to GET OUT OF THERE RIGHT NOW, I’m saying that this process requires a lot of thought, probably more money, and finally some good leadership. This isn’t a democratic or a republican issue; both parties voted for war. This is a giant mess that we got ourselves into and now we have to figure out how we can clean it all up. Americans are looking for answers, politicians are stuttering when asked what their basis was for entering the war, and the United States desperately needs a change in foreign policy. Every single candidate wants to show America that they have what it requires to get out of Iraq, or at least pick up the pieces. Is that not reason enough that the Iraq war is the biggest issue for 2008? Or should we go back to discussing abortion?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/11/AR2007091101993.html?sub=AR
http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/news/mhat/annex_a.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/18/world/main2582275.shtml
I believe that a main issue of the presidential campaign is global warming. Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth has gotten many Americans riled up about this problem. Presidential hopefuls are stressing the need to limit carbon dioxide emissions and increase the use of renewable energy. For example, John Edwards has stated that he will ban new power plants that do not have technology to control carbon dioxide emissions (Oakland Tribune).There has been some debate as to whether global warming is actually occurring. Most candidates have at least decided that even if they are unsure about global warming, cutting pollution can only be a positive thing. Mitt Romney states, “If climate change is happening, the actions we take will help. If climate change is largely caused by human action, this will really help. If we learn decades from now that climate change isn't happening, these actions will still help our economy, our quality of life, and the quality of our environment…” (The Boston Globe). Global warming is an important issue because it affects so many different parts of our lives. Barack Obama suggests with urgency the importance of these effects: “The need to drastically change our energy policy is no longer a debatable proposition. It is not a question of whether, but how; not a question of if, but when. For the sake of our security, our economy, our jobs and our planet, the age of oil must end in our time." (Heat). Our dependence on foreign oil is also a major aspect of this issue. If the United States were to become energy independent, not only would there be less pollution, but there would be fewer conflicts with countries in the Middle East. John Edwards also emphasizes the benefits that combatting global warming would have on our economy: "By creating a new energy economy – by transforming our energy infrastructure and investing in research, development and deployment of alternative energy technologies – we can not only address global warming and energy independence, we can create more than a million new jobs in America..." (Heat).
Looking at the candidates viewpoints on this issue, they all say some version of the same thing. The media has considerable influence here as it creates a lot of hype about global warming and influences public opinion. Politicians know that going against the popular opinion is political suicide. Although dealing with this massive problem in full will be costly to average Americans in the short run (Will people be willing to buy expensive compact-flourescent lightbulbs and cars that get more miles per gallon?), decreasing pollution will be invaluable in the long run.
Sources: The Heat is On 2008 (League of Conservation Voters) http://www.heatison.org/candidates
Gohlke, Jason. http://www.ecovote.org/blog/?p=55
The single most important issue of the 2008 presidential election will be the war in Iraq. There are many ways in which this war is significantly affecting our country and its leaders and that is why I feel that it will be of major concern to the voters and therefore the candidates in 2008. To begin with there are many tangibles to describe the effect that the war is having on this country. The current cost of the war is over $4.5 billion (http://costofwar.com). That is a lot of money that our country is spending when there are other problems such as the social security crisis, healthcare, and poverty issues that are also of concern. It is also a fact that this war is taking an emotional toll on the country as well. There have been 3,816 soldiers killed in Iraq this year (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm). This doesn’t even begin to mention every soldier that was injured or innocent Iraqi civilians that were killed, nor the families that were affected. This has affected people from all throughout America and they will certainly take that to heart when making their decision for president.
There are also some less tangible effects of the war that will certainly make it a top issue in the upcoming election. The opinion in our own country of the war is very low. People are looking for a change. They need a morale boost. According to a poll, 31% of Americans are not at all confident that the Iraqi government can meet their commitments to restore civil order and 28% of Americans think this war will go down in history as a complete failure (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm). Not only does our own country have a negative opinion about the war, but it is affecting the world view of the United States negatively, which could be potentially harmful in future foreign policy, as well as a threat to our national safety. In a poll 40% of Americans said they think that United States involvement in Iraq is creating the planning of more terrorist attacks (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm). Meanwhile, the United Kingdom is withdrawing some of their troops and support for the war. Haider Khan of Pakistan told CBS News that, “We pray for America’s destruction day and night.” How scary is that? Candidates and voters are taking note.
In my opinion this war does need to come to an end and its problems need to be solved. We need to withdraw troops. However, we can’t do it all at once. If we did, all good that was done would be reversed and we would leave a war torn country even more susceptible to rulers such as Saddam Hussein. I think our end goals are decent. However this country obviously needs a new strategy to get to those end goals more quickly and effectively. Once this is complete, the trust of other people in the world as well as our own United States citizens needs to be won back by the government. No matter what your feelings on the war are, Iraq will be the number one issue in the upcoming election.
The upcoming 2008 presidential election will be dominated by one principal issue: climate change. The damaging effects of the world’s haphazard and excessive lifestyle, with exceptions to some cultures and individuals, are irreversible and inevitably fatal. As of late, media and voter attention has shifted focus onto climate change through the problem’s exposure by men such as Al Gore and scientists.
Voters have begun to demand that climate change be placed higher upon the US government’s policy agenda. 134 towns within New Hampshire approved support for a resolution requesting increased government action regarding climate change (NY Times). Citizens of the influential first presidential primary state are “trying to bring to the attention of presidential candidates that we are concerned about this [climate change]” (Martin). According to a Washington Post-ABC News Poll, thirty-four percent of American adults found the issue of global warming [climate change] of personal importance to them, and fifty-seven percent supported that the issue would present a “very serious” problem if nothing was done in the future. Forty-nine percent of adults, nearly half of America, felt the government should do “much more” than it is currently to combat climate change. The sheer volume of citizen support for action regarding climate change indicates the issue must be the motivating factor of the presidential campaign.
The government needs to begin necessary arrangements to decrease the impact of US citizens on the delicate environment of the earth. Climate change will present dangers to human health and happiness sooner than future generations. Despite the utopian optimism that each person will do his or her own part to stop or slow climate change, government regulation and enforcement of environmentally-friendly actions is required to create a substantial change. Glacier melting, animal extinction, interrupted food chains, and additional fears of scientists and voters about the future have caused climate change to become the prominent issue in the 2008 presidential election. Each presidential candidate is obligated to present his or her views and plans for improvement or containment pertaining to climate change.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/polls/postpoll_environment_042007.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/us/19climate.html?ex=1189656000&en=4684008a3571d9b0&ei=5070
Responding to kshir:
I wasn't belittling the issues and debates revovling around abortion at all and I believe that I stated that earlier by saying that they are not at all in the same ballpark of decision making. I just believe that people tend to stay close minded about certain things unless you somehow relate consequences to their own life. Since everyone responding these comments goes to Jefferson it is something that obviously can be related to all of our lives. Really the issue of food could have been replaced by numerous other situations. For example I could've used something like the occupation of other countries. I'm guessing that a lot of people don't mind if the US invades another country (considering the number of people that supported the Iraq War when it first began,not saying that I supported it) because those people really don't see the effects it has on the people living in that place. Now say we switch that situation around and the US is going to be invaded, I'm guessing those same people that supported the invasion of another country are no longer feeling so great about the concept of invasion. Now that these people's lives are being effected they do not see the situation the same way. They now want a different choice and I believe that many people would get angry if that choice was taken away. I'm guessing now that my first hypothetical situation makes more sense now because I have used an example that you may believe is more important than french toast, thus further proving my own little "theory" of relating consequences.
~Toasty ; )
These are just a few of the links I checked out:
http://www.arabwashingtonian.org/english/article.php?issue=13&articleID=319
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/05/nh.gop.debate/index.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/21/obama_clinton_both_cite_iraq_p.html
Big shocker here, but I believe the war in Iraq is going to be the most important issue in this election by far. Mainly because it’s the most prominent issue that the American public is aware of and invested in personally. Over 30, 00 soldiers have been killed in Iraq, and skeptics argue we’ve seen very little positive results even after remaining in Iraq for such a long period of time. The article I read references how if we are to take last November’s mid-term elections as a sign, then the American public as a majority stands against the war, however could be swayed away from voting for a Democrat in 2008 because the common perception is that they have no clear plan for leaving.
Every instance when we see a potential candidate in the news or in a debate, the question of Iraq, among other issues, of course, is always brought up as an important discussion point. The American people have made it clear that in general this is the issue that could potentially make or break any candidate’s chances of getting their party’s nomination, let alone getting into the White House.
Based on the public perception, the importance the candidates give to the war in Iraq, and even the media coverage in the war and how people talk about it, it’s pretty safe to make the argument that our foreign policy with Iraq is going to be the deciding factor in 2008.
Personally, I would support a candidate who advocates a comprehensive removal of our troops from Iraq. The first article makes a point that if we leave Iraq improperly, there is the potential for regional instability and violence to affect other regions (such as Turkey), and for Iraq to revert back to violence. I feel like the candidate that can present the best way to bring troops home from Iraq without causing instability to take over again would get my vote. While many candidates have ideas about what they might do, at this point, it’s still pretty hard to tell what exactly they’re plans are for the situation in Iraq, which is what promises to make this election interesting. I feel like we’ve been in Iraq for too long and that we’ve lost too many young men and women to a war we didn’t need to fight in the first place.
I also agree that the war in Iraq is the most important issue for this upcoming election. Personally, I never believed that we should have gone into Iraq in the first place. Although Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States and cruel man to his own country, I believe that our main focus should have remained on the search for Osama Bin Ladin, the man who actually caused 9/11.
According to the polls shown on the CBS news website, there has been a dramatic decrease in support for the war amongst Americans. At the beginning of the war, 69% of the American people showed support for the war. However, after six long years of fighting and watching the death tolls of American soldiers climb, the number has dropped to 55%. People are beginning to doubt the ability of the United States to pull out without causing more chaos in Iraq, saying that they doubt the country will ever be able to have a stable democracy. According to the polls, 59% of Americans think that we should pull out of Iraq as soon as possible, a big increase from the 40% that believed this in June 2004.
Because these people have such strong arguments about the war in Iraq, it is no surprise that according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 43% of the people agree that the war in Iraq is the top issue for the 2008 election. 59% even say that they want a representative that will support a bill for troop withdrawal in August 2008. Because of these high percentages, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents have all mostly agreed that the war in Iraq is the number one most important issue for them to discuss during this campaign.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/10/opinion/polls/main930772.shtml-95k-
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=323
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/7655.pdf
In response to whelan08:
I agree with you that the issue of abortion is a very big issue and is very heatedly debated by both sides of the spectrum. Personally, I believe an abortion is ultimately a woman’s choice, regardless of how she got pregnant/why she wants the abortion/etc. However, I don’t think I can agree with your argument that this will be the issue that ultimately affects how the election will turn out.
1. As far as I can tell, the only way the president would effect the outcome of Roe v. Wade is with the nomination of Supreme Court justices that stand against it. This would mean a Republican/conservative president and the nomination of a Republican/conservative justice. However, there is already a conservative majority on the Supreme Court anyway. So… if it’s going to happen, I don’t think the nomination of another justice is completely necessary.
2. As pressing as an issue I can see abortion being, I feel like there are so many other issues going on that the American public will be more apt to vote on. I think many people are a bit divided on the issue of abortion, but on issues like Iraq, healthcare, education, rising gas prices, or energy reform, Americans seem to have a much easier time placing how they feel. Because of this, I think people will be more apt to vote on things that are affecting them more closely and have been more recently changing their lives. Abortion has been an issue for many many years, while the war in Iraq or energy reform has been discussed much less but have carried heavy implications in every speech given about them.
So, I guess as a whole, I agree abortion is an important issue, I just don’t think it will be the deciding factor for the 2008 elections when there are so many other issues it has to compete with.
In the Presidential Election for 2008, the Iraq war will be the most important issue. I believe it is something that has everyone's attention. The new statistics, surges, or reductions pour on to all the main news networks, newspapers, or blogs. It is obviously something that every candidate will have an opinion on and has further divided our country.
According to public opinion polling from Pollingreport.com, the War in Iraq leads with 35% as the single most important issue in the 2008 presidential election.
It is not only polls that show this information, though. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting, was not only a place for discussions on the Iraq War, but a way for presidential candidates in the Senate to affiliate themselves with a position and get a little extra press coverage, according to Dana Milbank from the Washington Post. Such presidential candidates include Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama, and Sen. McCain. Candidates have and will exploit this coverage of the war to win over potential voters using this hot issue in the media.
Another reason the Iraq War is the most important issue is because of the division it has caused across our country that is evident in our daily lives. It has become common to see protests close to home and even debates in our own classrooms. The Iraq War seems to have become a black and white issue and has caused even more distance socially and politically.
Lastly, there is the matter of the $450 billion, and rising, that our government that has been spent on the Iraq War. This is tax-payer’s money that could have been spent here at home fixing infrastructures, resolving health care, and education issues.
I believe that the Iraq War will be followed heavily by presidential candidates leading up to the election. Though opinions are very divided among our country about the issue, it will no doubt be passed on to the next president.
www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/11/AR2007091102154.html?hpid=topnews
www.costofwar.com
As stated in several posts before, there are plenty of pressing issues on the ballot this year. I personally think the issue of most concern is the national deficit. We are very far into debt and if we don’t balance to budget soon, we will just dig ourselves into an even worse economic hole. Apart from that, some of the most pressing matters, like Education and the Iraq war, will need sufficient funding to be completely resolved.
The national debt, as of September 12 2007 is 9,010,673,030,931.66 and we are supposedly spending around 1.45 billion. But those figures are an inaccurate summary of what is actually going on. The U.S general fund (the one we use for the military endeavors) is the fund that’s over 9 trillion in debt. There is a good side though; our Social Security fund and other trust funds (mainly FICA and revenues from gas taxes) are in a surplus by over 5 trillion together. Though, I might add, the Social Security system needs to be fixed and the gross national debt still out weighs either individual surplus by a landslide.
There are plenty of things we can do about this problem; it’s not an impossible goal to massively decrease the debt. In fact, the presidents after WWII managed to bring t he debt from 90% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) down to 32.5%. Right now, we are only around 65% or so (which, according to data is lower than it was in more than half Clinton’s presidency).
So I should determine a course of action, though it is not a simple matter. I think the candidates for presidency should put together an economic course of action that is bent on stimulating the economy. An economist of group of economists could obviously do a better job analyzing what should be done that I can. If the wealth of the nation goes up, taxing them won’t be so detrimental. The U.S is in a recession because of a housing slump, and a decrease in household expenditures. The predicted GDP Grown of the U.S is expected to fall from around 3.5% to only 2.1%. The government needs to splurge a tiny bit more and put some money back into the U.S, so we can come out of our slump. And it wouldn’t be bad if the fed also sold back some bonds, to help the cause of getting money in the system. Hopefully, if economics doesn’t fail us, the money will cause a chain effect through the system. If the economy does turn around the individual wealth increased, the government might be able to tax with less devastating effects.
I truly think the national debt is an important issue to address when choosing a presidential candidate. It’s gone on long enough and many economists say that our generation will be the ones who will have to pay it off. We might as well start before it climbs any higher.
these are the sites I used at refference:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/09/25/gurus.Farthing/
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/sep2006/pi20060922_981568.htm
http://zfacts.com/p/461.html
I think that the question of what is the most important issue in the election is ambiguous; however, the war in Iraq is probably the driving issue in this particular election in that it is the most pressing problem that whoever takes office will need to address. Other issues are important-- however, Iraq is the only issue in which postponing a possible solution has tangible ramifications, measured in both the number of lives lost and in the amount of resouces we are pouring into the region for each day we remain there.
I agree that issues like global warming and the state of social security are serious problems, but as long as they are addressed within the next few years, they are issues that do not need to be resolved as soon as possible, unlike the question of Iraq. I would venture to say that the existence of the War on Terror poses a roadblock to any attempt to create a major overhaul of any current domestic policy due to the drain on resources-- there is widespread dissatisfaction with the current Democratic-led Congress, at 52% as of the end of July according to the bipartisan GW Battleground Poll, conducted by George Washington University. However, dissatisfaction with Republicans in Congress is even higher, at 61% [1]. A portion of this is due to perception that the Congress is not doing enough to end the war
I favor withdrawal of the troops in a time table that would remove all US troops from the region within two years. I think that an immediate withdrawal of all troops would be a logistical nightmare and would potentially compound the current instability in Iraq. Adding troops to the forces in Iraq has not improved the situation by most, if not all, accounts. In fact, many think that the surge has worsened the situation in Iraq. In a poll of 2000 Iraqis nationwide conducted by the BBC, ABC News, and the NHK (Japan), the vast majority of the people polled have stated that they believe that the increase in troops has in fact worsened the security throughout all of Iraq, both in places where the troops were actually sent (70%), and elsewhere in the country (68%) [2]. Increasing numbers of Iraqis would prefer that we withdraw from Iraq now, from 35% in Feburary to 47% now [2]. In the US, according to a poll conducted by the Associated Press and Ipsos Public Affairs, 57% of Americans now believe that going to war in Iraq was a mistake, and 58% believe that sending more troops has not helped to stabilize the situation [3].
In my opinion, the War in Iraq cannot be "won," it can only be ended.
[1] http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/07/voters_disapprove_of_democrati.html
[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983027.stm
[3] http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Responding to Kshir
I would like to say that there are to places that I can see where abortions would be appropriate, I do agree that a victim of rape is not responsible for another persons actions. Also so if the pregnancy could cause fatal harm to the mother. I do not agree however that someone should have the right to take a life, which then turns into when does life begin, at conception or when the fetus can live outside the womb. This is also another highly debated topic. Reading some of the stories on the website I listed earlier, some women have 5 or 6 abortions. Does this not say something. I personally like to think of it this way. A smoker knows that long term use of cigarettes can lead to lung cancer. Now you could argue that because they knew the chances in advance that hospitals should not give them treatment for cancer,(The same as women knew they could become pregnant, but should not be able to have an abortion) but smoking did not lead them to make the choice of stopping an action that could lead to a new life. That is the real problem I have many people think that it is a quick fix, but after reading people's stories it is easy to see that it stays with many people all of their life. Many wish they had never had an abortion. I believe that everyone should have choices but who is protecting the rights of the fetus?
Although the Iraq war is definitely a hot issue for the upcoming election, I believe the topic of what we're going to do about global warming is also going to be widely discussed. Ocean levels are rising, hurricanes are becoming more intense, polar bears are drowning due to melting ice caps, and the o-zone layer is depleting. It is up to us as a nation to gradually put global warming to a halt.
The key word is 'gradual' when it comes to the topic of putting an end to this issue. A solution is not going to come overnight. One difficulty I believe our nation will have in becoming independent of oil is accounting for petrochemical products. Petrochemical products are made from oil and include over 4,000 products from artificial limbs to shampoo. It will be tough but can be done using things such as biodegradable substances to substitute for the oil. For example, some plastic bottles are now being made out of corn.
Things you as an individual can do to help out the environment are: buy a hybrid car (the average driver saves 16,000 pounds of CO2 and $3,750 per year), carpool, keep tires inflated, buy minimally packaged goods, and unplug un-used electronics.
Thing the future president and government can also do to alleviate this problem include effective public transportation, such as the light-rail. The amount of land being used to build on can also be limited. The final thing, thought sounding odd at first, is to limit population growth by encouraging families to have less children. One place this is being demonstrated is in China where families are only allowed to have one child per household.
www.globalwarming.net
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.htmll
Lauren
I too will take a different stance on the term “most important issue.” The Iraq war is the most important issue right now, but we won’t be in Iraq for the next president’s full 4 terms. Basing an election on a candidate’s stance on the war (or on any current issue for that matter) is like blowing an entire paycheck on candy. You’ll be the happiest person in the world for 45 minutes, but then you finish your candy and have no money, a stomach-ache, and a mouthful of cavities. If you pick a candidate for one issue that will be resolved within the next year or two, what are you left with for 2010 and 2011? If you pick the wrong candidate you will be left with the metaphorical stomach-ache and cavities. That is why I think you should vote for the man or woman whom you feel is the most trustworthy.
I know there’s no such thing as an honest politician, but let’s face it, there’s no way to tell what the most important issues are going to be in 2009, 2010, 2011 and so on. If you don’t trust a candidate to make the right choices when new issues pop up, you are in for four years of misery. When Bush was inaugurated in 2001 how many casual Americans cared about Al Qaeda? It only took nine months of Bush’s presidency for “the most important issue” to change. Did Bush make the right choice in retaliation? More importantly would Gore have found a better option? Looking at all the presidential candidates, I’ve found I disagree with every single one of them on one thing or another. That tells me I can’t decide based on who knows what to do for the first six months of February ’09. Show me a president that knows what they’re doing even if they don’t know what’s happening. Show me a president who is willing to go against the grain if it ends up being for the greater good. Show me somebody who I feel safe agreeing with, even if I feel he is wrong. After all, unless I am president I won’t agree with everything the president does. Although I haven’t officially ruled it out yet, I feel pretty safe saying that I am not running for president. I want to put the issues (both current and future) in the hands of a man or woman I feel will make the choices that are best for the country.
There is no way for us to know how a president’s tenure will unfold. Maybe all goes smoothly, and all goes according to plan. But if a crisis occurs would you rather have someone hide under their desk and cry or would you rather have someone man up (figure of speech, no offense Hillary) and face the problem with a nation of people rallying behind them. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I want have trust in Captain America, rather than agree with him/her about the War in Iraq.
HYPERLINK "http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm" http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm
For those like me who feel more than one issue is necessary in electing a president. Shows voting records, including some moral questions on which you can base judgments on “character.”
HYPERLINK "http://www.forbes.com/2007/08/15/forbes-tracker-mean-oped-cx_daa_0815mean.html" http://www.forbes.com/2007/08/15/forbes-tracker-mean-oped-cx_daa_0815mean.html
Mean people often are shortsighted and have bad adaptation skills. If it doesn’t go their way, they will usually approach the new situation with a bad attitude. Granted this list is an inexact science, but it is a good concept nonetheless.
HYPERLINK "http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president.php" http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president.php
Find any candidate’s life story.
-The Tony Bader
While this has been said several times, the definitive issue of the 2008 presidential race is the war in Iraq. How the next president handles the situation in the Middle East will affect western foreign policy for the entirety of his/her presidency and possibly longer. The war in Iraq is the reason, or some might say the excuse, given for the global trend of anti-American feeling. The next president, who out of political necessity must portray him/herself as independent of George W. Bush, will have an opportunity to salvage the reputation of the U.S. in the West and some areas of the East more receptive to American ideology. Though cutting loose from Iraq is impossible, better handling of the situation is imperative if the U.S. is to regain global clout and respect lost by the current Administration. It is no longer possible to pretend that this war helped anything, though people like Rudy Giuliani and Michael Chertoff (Homeland Security secretary, not an '08 candidate) claim that somehow it is helping our country. This is impractical. What we need now is a president who can handle foreign policy matters, one who speaks not of “winning” the war, but of salvaging Iraq. According to the report by Ambassador Crocker yesterday, this will take longer than people expect. It is imperative that the next chief executive of our country does not make a bigger mess of Iraq than the U.S. has already done.
Sources (both blog articles):
www.time.com/blog/middle_east
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6990365.stm
I hate to be repetitive, but I too believe the war in Iraq will be an important issue in the 2008 Presidential election. I believe that this has been such a pressing issue to many that a candidate’s stance on the issue at hand will have a big impact on the voter’s decision. I believe that this will have a big impact because almost everyone has some knowledge and opinion of the war. Even those voters who don’t pay much attention to candidate debates or know every candidates views on every issue will at least know their own opinion of what our plan of action should be in Iraq.
Personally, I support withdrawing our troops from Iraq. However, I know it cannot and do not think that this should be done overnight. I think that we have lost a lot throughout the time that we have been at war and just pulling out tomorrow wouldn’t do any good. As of today there have been 4,072 coalition deaths. I believe that since we went in and invaded their country we cannot now, leave just leave it and hope that everything for them turns out all right. When the war first began many American citizens agreed that we should go to war and liberate Iraq. But now, years after and the war still going I think many feel like things aren’t seeming to get better for the Iraqi’s or us here at home. Many citizens of Iraq are left without electricity, their home lives have been disturbed and we have killed many Iraq citizens while being part of a war that is trying to liberate and bring democracy to their country. My position on this issue is that we should slowly begin to withdraw troops from Iraq and I think that this will have a big impact on which candidate voters will vote for in the 2008 Presidential election.
sources:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/impact/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/24/iraq
I feel as if global warming is the most important issue in the upcoming election although I do not think it will play as crucial of a role in the outcome of the election as the war in Iraq will. Nevertheless, global warming threatens the present and the future United States and is an issue that should be towards the top of every politicians list. By 2010, temperatures in North America are projected to rise by about 2-13ยบ F according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The wide range of temperatures can also be seen as an indicator: more research should be dedicated to the irreversible effects of global warming. Not only is global warming killing off animals and decreasing the amount of clean drinking water in third world countries, but it is affecting people, many people, right here in the United States. For example, as clarified in An Inconvenient Truth, before Hurricane Katrina passed over warmer waters it was only a category 1 storm. Therefore, although the war is an important and possibly defining issue, our rapidly changing environment is a lasting issue that needs to be dealt with immediately.
Sorry here are my sources :)
www.epa.gov/climatechange/
An Inconvenient Truth
Dear Aki Black...
I'll begin my response by stating simply: I do not agree with FairTax, which is not to say tax reform or increase. FairTax abolishes too many necessary taxes unnecessarily (I'll note that estate/gift and payroll taxes were the very examples of this I referenced in my original case).
The entire idea behind national sales tax, particularly the FairTax proposal, is a tax based on consumption and not income. Thusly, following their logic, the fact that lower-income families may pay a larger percent of their income in tax (now, this is not taking into account voucher/prebate systems) is irrelevant. Furthermore, and more importantly, given the nature of a consumption based tax, personal choice and conservation are key factors in how much one is taxed. Therefore, given the dynamic of how tax is applied, it is rather difficult to assert that lower-income families will be taxed more than higher-income families. In light of this, your first point doesn't seem to stand.
As to your second point, I must once again re-reference my original post. The data calculations provided were based solely on Consumer Index data and show that $1.6 trillion tax dollars would be generated (as opposed to $1.1 trillion under income taxes as reported by the federal budget for the same year). Please note, $1.1 trillion does not represent the inclusion of payroll, estate, or gift tax; only individual and corprate income tax. This is relevant as the type of sales you point out are not even represented in the first place.
Additionally, the 23-34 identifiers are differential, as there are several ways to represent tax paid (I'll note for reference, that I proposed a national sales tax rate of 30% in my original case).
(Question: If I'm responding to two different posts, do I post twice? I'll just keep it as one for now...)
In response to A.Lee:
Sorry, I mixed up FairTax and national sales tax in my head. But they are similar, I believe.
I'm glad you bought the prebate system up. Prebate systems are also vulnerable to abuse, as many people will falsify family size, marital status, etc. This creates a) less total tax revenue in the first place, and b) the requirement for some sort of enforcement mechanism to verify people's information. This seems to be expensive and impractical. In response to your argument that lower-income families getting more of their income taxed is irrelevant, I would have to disagree. First of all, there are moral problems with taxing most heavily those who can least afford it. Secondly, it is bad economic policy. If goods and services cost more than people can afford, they will by necessity spend less, buying only the essentials. This depresses the economy as people consume less.
I don't quite understand what you mean by "the dynamic of how tax is applied," but I would argue that it is fairly easy to assert that the tax would fall more heavily on those who are not wealthy. As I stated above, we are taxing those who can least afford it. Even if the tax ends up being the same for everyone, I would still argue that it is unfair to tax someone who makes $10,000 a year the same as someone who makes $500 million.
Your rate of 30% is still under the 34% needed to replace the income tax and fund the cash grants/prebates, not taking into account the expense of enforcing the tax in the event of non-compliance.
And, because I feel obliged to enter the Roe v. Wade fray at some point, I'd like to respond to whelan08's last post:
You get at the heart of the issue when you talk about the "when does life begin?" debate. Personally, I think this is a question best left up to religions and philosophers, not the USFG. As such, I am pro-choice. That debate, as is the decision whether to undergo an abortion, is a highly personal decision, one that I do not think the government has any right to take part in. You may call it murder, but there is gray area there. The debate over where to draw the line should rest with the individual.
I agree with what was said earlier; I don't think that any woman views this as a "quick fix," and takes it lightly.
And this may sound cold, and I fully expect to get flamed for it, but fetuses do not have rights. They cannot inherit property. They are not considered citizens until birth. They are not counted in censuses. If the mother miscarries, they do not have to get a death certificate. Some people think of it as a child, when it is still a clump of cells untenable outside the womb.
Also, I would like to point out that many people use their religious beliefs as justification for opposing abortion. And that's fine...if it's their justification for not getting an abortion themselves. They do not, however, have the right to impose that belief on others who may believe differently. We have separation of church and state for a very good reason.
(This is Kendra.)
One of the most important issues in the upcoming
election is health care. Healthcare is voted on as the
number one domestic issue by many americans. This
issue is important because, Health care costs are
skyrocketing. Health insurance premiums have risen
four times faster than wages over the past six years
according to Obama’s website. About 47 million
Americans do not have healthcare including 9 million
children (Obama’s website). Most of the candidates in
this election agrees that health care Premium should
be lowered so it can be affordable to the people. What
they dissagree on is how to go about the issue.
According to Barack Obama, he will provide affordable
health care package to people similar to what federal workers have, and it will not be based on their illnesses. Also he plans to spend large amounts of money on prevention services.Rudy Guiliani wants to provide free health care to families of $15,000 or lower income without employer coverage. He also believes rewarding states for innovative ways to provide affordable health care. All these ideas are really good, but I believe what they should do is create a universal healthcare for americans who meets specific qualifications, like how much income is generated into a household. While also keeping the price down for those that do not meet the qualifications. I also believe health care should be free for all senior citizens, including all and discluding none.
I think that there is two sides to what issue is driving the campaign, which is foreign and domestic. For a foreign issue I believe that it is the Iraq War which is most imperative. On a domestic side I think that both gay rights and abortion are the most important issues.
The Iraq war is important because the voters want to know what is going to happen over there. I think we need to have a set plan that they will follow of when we will accomplish our goals over there and when we will leave.
Secondly as on a domestic side I think both gay rights and abortion is the most imperative issue. Both are a hot topic and many voters are looking at their candidate’s stance on these issues as a big deciding factor. Personally I believe that abortion should remain pro-choice and as far as gay rights I believe that gay marriage and civil unions should be legal and that they can be together and get married if they so choose.
http://www.pro-choicelibertarians.net/
http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/frontdoor.cfm?issue_type=gay_rights
I, like many others, also believe the situation in Iraq is the most important issue in the 2008 election. I think originally Bush had good reason for going to Iraq, believing there were dangerous people and weapons there. Now, however, we have caused much damage in their country, and we need to focus on helping their government become self sufficient. Then we can leave Iraq and focus on pressing issues in our own country, for instance, the debt our nation is in caused by the war. I think whoever becomes president in 2008 needs to have a plan for withdrawing troops gradually, so Iraq can get used to protecting themselves and building a government that supports its citizens and their best interests. I also think it is extremely important for the U.S. to consider more what Iraq wants for their country, not what the United States wants for Iraq. We can't expect them to run their country the way we do considering how different our societies have been through hundreds of years in the past.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/11/AR2007091101993.html?sub=AR
sorry- my source
In response to Jazmyn's post on Education being an improtant issue in the 2008 presidential election I also agree. Education is key to the future of America. If the next generation is not educated or not being prepared for the real world, where are we as a country going to be in twenty years.
Every year more than 1.2 million students drop out of high school without going on to earn a GED later in life. And those who do graduate end up doing poorly in college becuase they were ill prepared in earlier education. With over 2/3 of our nations employment oppertunities requiring a higher education, openings for those not getting an education in the real world are dwindling.
There are many oppertunities for schools to change their ways in order to provide a better education for those in need. Some of these include more rigorous courses avaliable at younger ages, a higher standard of learning introduced at the younger ages, or a Teacher Advancement Program in order to professionalize our teachers. Currently Minnesota is doing something similar to this program called "Q Comp", which provides more indepth training for all teachers.
A change in our educational system has to start today in order to effect the world tomorrow. Why not make it a national issue, it should not just be left up to the states to make changes. We have tried that in the past and it is clearly still a problem for the nation. As Minnesotans who have had great educational programs in the past, we do not always see how different our schools are compared to others around the US. It is a problem that would benefit the future of our country if only our nation would make an effort to change.
http://www.edin08.com/GetTheFacts.aspx
http://www.amsa.org/election/platform.cfm
As the 2008 election draws near one may wonder, what will be the most important issue within the election? In my opinion, no issue would attract more attention than the ever significant subject of the economy. Although, like many others, I see foreign policy as being important, I do not see it as being the key issue for the next election. I must say that the economy is the most important issue in the election, for during this time of recession many are quick to blame the party that controls the White House. To help prevent this from being an issue, Republican contenders would defend themselves while Democrats would go on the offensive, in turn making it a substantial concern. Examples of this can be seen in elections past as economics spelled trouble for Herbert Hoover as he ran against Franklin Roosevelt. Other instances include Jimmy Carter’s loss to Ronald Reagan in 1980 and Richard Nixon’s loss to John F. Kennedy in 1960. Even as other issues remain important, citizens who felt the pressures of the recession should act rationally and therefore think in their most direct self interests, that of which being the US economy. Many others also see the economy as being a key player in the 2008 election as Alan I. Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University stated, "It's an enormous opportunity for the Democrats to criticize the failures of the Bush administration, the fallout we are seeing from laissez-faire economic policies." However, perhaps I am wrong and the sources I used are bias, but the process of economics and therefore the work of economists’ centers on facts and data, rather than guesses and opinion.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/r-word-may-spell-trouble/story.aspx?guid=%7BDEDAC273%2D85D4%2D482D%2DBD58%2DA60C40404CA0%7D&dist=
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2007/08/is_the_2008_ele.html
Post a Comment