The biggest issues discussed were alternative energy sources, health care reform, education improvements, and the ECONOMY. I don't have much to say about alternative energy sources, I'm all for them and I think the more we decrease foreign oil dependency the better it is for our children and children's children. Reformed health care to me means nationalized health care, similar to systems seen in France, UK, Australia, etc. I oppose this for several reasons. Firstly, nationalizing health care is a long and difficult process, and its not like its free, someone has to pay for it...and who is that someone? Taxpayers. Also, doctors around the world are fleeing countries with nationalized health care and coming to the United States because they just don't get paid that well. Well, if we start nationalizing our health care system, we will start loosing some of the best doctors around, making our service/health care mediocre. Instead of this "reform", why don't we decrease our welfare rates and try employing people, creating job opportunities, and giving corporate tax breaks for companies that increase health care benefits for employees? I think there are numerous ways of dealing with healthcare, using socialism fundamentals and nationalization policies is not one of them.
I was on a plane recently and sat next to a woman who works in health care. She told me we spend nearly 99% of health care funds on treatment, rather than on prevention. Imagine how much "change" you can bring about by dedication 10, 20, even 30 percent of funding towards disease/illness prevention and research rather then just treatment. Anyways, on to the next topic.
Education. I think this is definitely an area we can improve upon. We need to get more kids through high school, more enrolled into college programs, and we need to be able to help them pay for this kind of education. I wonder if there is some sort of federal scholarship program, if not, maybe some of the bailout money should be used for that. However, there are two things that really bothered me regarding President Obama's speech this evening, and those are the closing of GITMO and the promise "to create 3.5 million jobs in two years". I don't want to sound like a pessimist, but that's roughly 150,000 new jobs created per month for the next 24 months. Let me put that in perspective for you. Last month, we lost 598,000 jobs. In order for Obama to create new jobs we would need economic growth. Growth is not predicted to occur until at least the third quarter, if not the fourth quarter, of this year. Meaning, he would realistically have about 12-16 months to create 3.5 million jobs. Again, call me a pessimist, but I just don't see that happening.
Lets move on to Guantanamo Bay. I have had several discussions with people regarding the closing of gitmo, and am yet to hear a valid reason as to why we should shut it down. It is a known fact that suspected terrorists and/or know terrorists return to terrorist activity once released from being detained. If you think somehow that they can be deterred, then you are in for one hell of a surprise. These people are programmed to do one thing, and that is follow a chain of command in a fantasized Jihad that they have played out in their heads. Now lets walk through the logic. Say we close gitmo. Lets say Osama Bin Laden is walking around Union Square and gets caught, arrested, the whole nine yards. What happens? He gets a lawyer, and the right to a fair trial? If he is imprisoned, do we (taxpayers) have to pay for his jail accommodations? I just don't get it. I know the man loves America and wants to protect us, but when you want to close gitmo, let terrorists go free, and cut defense spending by 10%, I start to question some things.
Overall, I would give his speech today a C, maybe a C+ (unlike CNN's report card of straight A's). I think the President brought up the main topics of concern that the country is dealing with, and I think he explained the issues in a manner in which the public could relate to and understand. However, as usual, he was very vague and ambiguous and did not offer many details, which is a troubling and frustrating habit of his.
Lastly, has the republican party just completely given up? Because I'm pretty sure I could have delivered a better answer speech tonight then Bobby Jindal did. I actually felt sorry for the guy, following up Obama with a speech is not an easy thing to do. But please don't tell me he is the new face of the GOP...otherwise I'm voting independent next time.
Here's your first post...I think it'll be your last too
ReplyDeleteI agree with you one hundred percent. Obama is well known for setting goals without explaining the means to get there. This is very frustrating because he has gone out there and said his administration will be the most transparent in history but so far there have been many examples of this not happening (i.e. the stimulus bill not being released 48 hrs before being voted on). The masses are blinded and ignorant and willing to forgive and forget all his shortcomings, they being nurtured by Olbermann's teet.
ReplyDeleteAs for Jindal I ahve to disagree with you. Jindal is a great up-and-comer in the party but tonight was a bad speech though. Look at his background and record and there is nobody else in the Party that comes close to what he has done in such a short amount of time. Give him time to find a speechwriter, he'll be alright.
I like this format for you, Nars. We disagree ideologically about a number of political issues, but I think your stances are well thought out and in earnest. Two quick things, though, about a couple issues you raise.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the closing of Guantanamo doesn't signal the actual release of suspected or known terrorists, just their transfer. We aren't going to have Al-Qaeda members walking around Union Square, they'll be imprisoned in military bases and other secure locations all over the world (in fact, the majority outside our borders). The closing of Gitmo is only the closing of a sort of void, or black hole space in which internation criminal law has no bearing. Actually, these prisoner being transfered out aren't guaranteed the same sort of rights to trial that a U.S. citizen gets when he/she is charged with a crime. All these guys are going to get are the basic human legal rights that the Geneva Convention and other international legal docs and treatises lay out regarding terrorist and prisoner of war guidelines. Believe me, this doesn't promise much, just that we aren't going to water board them in Cuba. Now, if you think they SHOULD be waterboarded in Cuba, thats another argument for another post.
Secondly, one of the main objectives of expanding governments role in funding health care programs IS to focus more money on preventative measures, because government's goal is use their tax monies to serve public interests (i.e. everyone), rather than only private (i.e. shareholders/executives) intrests. Private companies have failed to increase preventative care spending because its been easier for them to increase profits by just refusing to cover those who can't afford it (its been an outrageously profitable decade for them, even when we have tens of millions uninsured).
What I'm saying is, I think that you're actually more into this administration's health plans than you think -- If your think we should be spending a higher percentage on preventative care, because it is inevitably more efficient than treating the full-blown illness, then you are, by definition, making an argument for an expansion of well regulated, highly accountable federal and state sponsored health programs. In other words, if we want preventative care emphasized, we need government to do it, because most private health care providers simply won't do it on a wide scale. Now, its up to smart and vigilent people to keep an eye on government to make sure they do it RIGHT (its looks like you've already gotten started on that).
I look forward to reading more from you... I like hearing your perspective, even (and maybe especially) when you and I disagree. Keep up the good work.
JJD
Jack, give this a read. I wanna hear some more thoughts about this, because its important.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/26/transfer-al-qaeda-combatant-civilian-court/
Much love,
Narsai
So by the way, good choice or bad choice to close Gitmo?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/526906.aspx
Weez wisdom
Honestly, I can't lie(which is redundant, but I really don't care), and I like what I'm hearing from you. I know I won't always agree, but it's nice to hear an opposing point of view that doesn't just try to hit me in the head, repeatedly. Your arguments have basis in fact and have been obviously pored over for some time before you share them with us. The only thing I don't really like about them is the fact that you aren't really giving us good suggestions on how to fix these things, and you're moreso pointing out where things are flawed. I'd like to see you express how real CHANGE can be affected and give us more "how" rather than just the "what", in terms of your concerns.
ReplyDeleteAs far as your stance on health care, however, I am inclined to feel that the current system is rather cutthroat, and am in favor of nationalizing, due to the fact that I believe everyone deserves to be treated(or taken care of preventively), and the current system is not only taking advantage of the stratification of our economy, but also that if health insurance costs were reallocated as taxes, you wouldn't notice the difference in your out of pocket costs as much. As biased as it sounds, I was watching part of Sicko the other day and was shocked at the prices of prescription drugs in other countries. That is not to say I don't agree with you on the point about doctors leaving America, but that I think something needs to be done about the nation's level of health on the whole(obesity, epidemics, etc.) and sometimes you need to try new ways of looking at things, especially if they are working elsewhere. Furthermore, considering the fact that making a more preventive health care structure would decrease the instance of illness and other problems, it would probably also decrease the immediate need for as many amazing doctors.
Sorry to bother you, House, but you might need to figure out something else to do.
I'm excited to open a dialog with you in the hopes that we can all learn from each other, and grow into the best nation possible, together.