Friday, November 14, 2008
comment on "The US Government"
I have read an editorial “The US Government” by my classmate Kenneth in his blog "The National Prerogative." I agree with him that the government is ineffective, costly, and complicated today. When our Founding Fathers created the legislative, executive, and justice systems, they put many limits on their authorities in order to separate the power and make them check and balance each other. However, this huge and complex government has so many difficulties to pass a law or make a decision. Nowadays, we are living in the 21th century where everything changes so fast. This unproductive and ineffective ruling style should be improved. For example, they should eliminate the filibuster which has waste so much time and killed so many bills. I also agree that the government is costly and extravagance. The campaign of the Senators, Representatives, and president are very expensive. Instead of spending the huge money on election, why not spend it on the things that are crying needs. Moreover, as Kenneth said, the imperfect system enables some officials to make “pork barrel” for pleasing their constituency. Indeed, people do not mind to tax themselves to pay their representatives and senators, but they are disappointed and dissatisfied about the ineffective outcomes of the government. In addition, the complicated government and misleading media keep public out of the reach information and politic affairs. Maybe the rulers should spend a little budget on establishing an exclusive channel to inform the nation about what is going on inside the government; who the candidates of an office are and what their plans and supports are; which bills are on debates, and so on. At least, we should do something to improve and update the ineffective, costly and complicated government of the United States.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Obama 2008
More than 33 million people watched Obama’s paid political ad Wednesday night on seven networks. I was impressed by it. No arrogance, no whining, just the straight talk. No twisting of facts, just an articulate presentation of how things are and what is needed to address them. The “hope” of a better future, not the “fear” associated with the Republican rhetoric. Not one negative attack on opponent’s values, personality, or his running mate. Especially, at the end of the 30 minutes commercial, Obama said he is not a perfect man and he will not become a perfect president. Good job! He masterly takes advantage of internet to collect campaign finance and TV commercial to attract swing voters. Sen. Obama is running a model campaign: disciplined, inspirational, thoughtful, one that mostly, but not always, takes the high road. I feel Obama has the ability to achieve his goal of pulling Americans together. He is comfortable with and knows how to use power in deliberate way. His steady course of action appeals to the nation. This is politics, after all. Obama has the ability to achieve his goal of pulling Americans together.
Someone who opposes him says that Obama is a socialist. Definitely not! Please look up a dictionary. Socialism means a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and controls the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Does he say he will collect all of your properties and redistribute them among the whole community? Pay a little more tax is not a big deal for the people who earn more than 200,000 annually. Maybe a hundred dollars mean a dinner at an Italian restaurant for you; however, they mean a whole week food for some families.
Someone who opposes him says that Obama will not accomplish all of his promises. That is true. Neither candidate will do all they say they are going to do. They do not make these decisions by themselves. Nevertheless, a candidate who brings hope to people is much better than a candidate who never deliberate a clear message of how his administration would be, and throwing mud to his opponent every chance he gets.
Someone who opposes him says that Obama is not a Christian. Following organized religion is a personal decision; not a political decision. Presidential election is not about religion and this is one reason organized religion is so wrong in the world today—such “devout” followers base their vote on someone’s religious faith or the religious political boxes they claim to stand on. Get religion out of politics!
Someone who opposes him says that Obama’s huge spending on the TV commercial will be pay back by increasing taxes. Sour grapes! Barack Obama is paying for this infomercial through his diligent fundraising efforts. Is McCain running out of funds?
Someone who opposes him says that Obama is linked to terrorists, that he is not pro-American, that he is an elitist, that he lacks experience, that he supports infanticide, that he is not a friend to Israel…the list goes on and on. Too bad John McCain’s campaign never gave us any clear massage of how his administration would be different from the economic and foreign policies of George W. Bush. He simply gave us the message that we should be afraid of Barack Obama with unsupported and unsubstantiated attacks.
Today, people are struggling to survive. We cannot let our own infrastructure and economy crumble as we spend 10 billion dollars a month in Iraq on a war that we should not have gotten into in the first place and probably will not make us any safer. Americans are tired of living in fear. We need to make the changes with a wide sweep. Sure it is a risk, but what have the Republicans done for us in the last two elections? Here we sit: devastated economy, a faltering medical system, a lagging educational environment, social security in ruins, standing alone in its defenses, a mockery by almost ever foreign power, and others.
Do not say I have a bias in favor of Obama. Actually, I am a foreigner so I cannot vote. I support Obama because I think he is ready and he will be a great president of the United States. If I want to bias people, I would give applause to McCain, because from the stance of a Chinese, McCain’s China policy is much better than Obama’s. In hard times, people should stop barking at each other; America must pulls together to tide over difficulties. No matter who becomes the next president, remember who and what you are: An American, strong! Proud! And united!
Someone who opposes him says that Obama is a socialist. Definitely not! Please look up a dictionary. Socialism means a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and controls the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Does he say he will collect all of your properties and redistribute them among the whole community? Pay a little more tax is not a big deal for the people who earn more than 200,000 annually. Maybe a hundred dollars mean a dinner at an Italian restaurant for you; however, they mean a whole week food for some families.
Someone who opposes him says that Obama will not accomplish all of his promises. That is true. Neither candidate will do all they say they are going to do. They do not make these decisions by themselves. Nevertheless, a candidate who brings hope to people is much better than a candidate who never deliberate a clear message of how his administration would be, and throwing mud to his opponent every chance he gets.
Someone who opposes him says that Obama is not a Christian. Following organized religion is a personal decision; not a political decision. Presidential election is not about religion and this is one reason organized religion is so wrong in the world today—such “devout” followers base their vote on someone’s religious faith or the religious political boxes they claim to stand on. Get religion out of politics!
Someone who opposes him says that Obama’s huge spending on the TV commercial will be pay back by increasing taxes. Sour grapes! Barack Obama is paying for this infomercial through his diligent fundraising efforts. Is McCain running out of funds?
Someone who opposes him says that Obama is linked to terrorists, that he is not pro-American, that he is an elitist, that he lacks experience, that he supports infanticide, that he is not a friend to Israel…the list goes on and on. Too bad John McCain’s campaign never gave us any clear massage of how his administration would be different from the economic and foreign policies of George W. Bush. He simply gave us the message that we should be afraid of Barack Obama with unsupported and unsubstantiated attacks.
Today, people are struggling to survive. We cannot let our own infrastructure and economy crumble as we spend 10 billion dollars a month in Iraq on a war that we should not have gotten into in the first place and probably will not make us any safer. Americans are tired of living in fear. We need to make the changes with a wide sweep. Sure it is a risk, but what have the Republicans done for us in the last two elections? Here we sit: devastated economy, a faltering medical system, a lagging educational environment, social security in ruins, standing alone in its defenses, a mockery by almost ever foreign power, and others.
Do not say I have a bias in favor of Obama. Actually, I am a foreigner so I cannot vote. I support Obama because I think he is ready and he will be a great president of the United States. If I want to bias people, I would give applause to McCain, because from the stance of a Chinese, McCain’s China policy is much better than Obama’s. In hard times, people should stop barking at each other; America must pulls together to tide over difficulties. No matter who becomes the next president, remember who and what you are: An American, strong! Proud! And united!
Friday, October 17, 2008
Rich, do not be afraid of "spreading the wealth"
After the presidential debate yesterday night, Google's search engine was clogged with requests for information about "Joe the plumber." In the "Washington Monthly" blog, I found an interesting post which was writen by Hilzoy, a philosophy professor.
Spread The Wealth
I agree with her and here are my additional support evidences:
We've witnessed the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the USA. When George Bush came into office, the richest 1% of Americans made 17% of the total income in the US. The richest 1% now makes close to 25% of the income in the US.
When Republicans call the progressive taxes as socialist expropriation, they should study the history. 1929, 1987 & 2008 have been the worst economic times in history. What they all have in common is republican administrations and the “free market” policy which favors the ultra wealthy and corporations.
One of the goals of a progressive tax system is to slow down the concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands. GOP fantasies notwithstanding, consumer economies cease to function when one guy owns everything and everyone else has nothing. It's no big secret that the worst economic crises - like the one we're seeing now - happen when concentration of wealth becomes so lopsided that a significant percentage of the population is only minimally participating in the economy. Consumer economies don't work when half or more of the people involved have no discretionary spending power. However, with Obama's tax policy, lots of people will have more money to spend & they may spend it such as at Joe's Plumbing Emporium & Fantasyland. It's a virtuous cycle. As we've seen, Bush’s taxes cut may bring in more profit in the short-term, but in the long-term it can literally kill the company if no one can afford without taking on huge amounts of debt.
Moreover, taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. This is what pays for the roads, hospitals, schools, firefighters, police, etc. Some people complain that taxes in the San Francisco Bay area are high yet somehow lots of people still live there and others are trying to get in. It is partly because of the investment in taxes in roads, clean air and water, universities, museums, and on and on that it is a desirable place to live. Wealthy people benefit much more from civil society than poor people do and so it is reasonable that they be taxed somewhat higher. Actually, progressive taxes are relatively cheap insurances that the rich can pay to keep from bankruptcy or even suicide when the Revolution comes.
It's time to spread the wealth around.
Spread The Wealth
I agree with her and here are my additional support evidences:
We've witnessed the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the USA. When George Bush came into office, the richest 1% of Americans made 17% of the total income in the US. The richest 1% now makes close to 25% of the income in the US.
When Republicans call the progressive taxes as socialist expropriation, they should study the history. 1929, 1987 & 2008 have been the worst economic times in history. What they all have in common is republican administrations and the “free market” policy which favors the ultra wealthy and corporations.
One of the goals of a progressive tax system is to slow down the concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands. GOP fantasies notwithstanding, consumer economies cease to function when one guy owns everything and everyone else has nothing. It's no big secret that the worst economic crises - like the one we're seeing now - happen when concentration of wealth becomes so lopsided that a significant percentage of the population is only minimally participating in the economy. Consumer economies don't work when half or more of the people involved have no discretionary spending power. However, with Obama's tax policy, lots of people will have more money to spend & they may spend it such as at Joe's Plumbing Emporium & Fantasyland. It's a virtuous cycle. As we've seen, Bush’s taxes cut may bring in more profit in the short-term, but in the long-term it can literally kill the company if no one can afford without taking on huge amounts of debt.
Moreover, taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. This is what pays for the roads, hospitals, schools, firefighters, police, etc. Some people complain that taxes in the San Francisco Bay area are high yet somehow lots of people still live there and others are trying to get in. It is partly because of the investment in taxes in roads, clean air and water, universities, museums, and on and on that it is a desirable place to live. Wealthy people benefit much more from civil society than poor people do and so it is reasonable that they be taxed somewhat higher. Actually, progressive taxes are relatively cheap insurances that the rich can pay to keep from bankruptcy or even suicide when the Revolution comes.
It's time to spread the wealth around.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Are you kidding me?
I totally disagree with David Brooks. Mr. Brooks, whose column has appeared on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times since September 2003, seems like a very thoughtful, reasonable man, with the type of writing style that bespeaks good judgment and much intelligence. Unfortunately, he has lost much of his balance on this comment. Brooks sounds too right-leaning and seems a bit biased. He has completely forgotten what office Governor Palin is running for.
If this is a rebound, our expectations of the scope and depth of knowledge, the ability to be articulate and the level of intelligence that we now accept in our potential leaders has sunk to new lows.
"There she was, resplendent in black, striding out like a power-walker, and greeting Joe Biden like an assertive salesman, first-naming him right off the bat.""She spoke with that calm, measured poise that marked her convention speech, not the panicked meanderings of her subsequent interviews."
"With a bemused smile and a never-ending flow of words, she laid out her place on the ticket — as the fearless neighbor for the heartland bemused by the idiocies of Washington."
Yes, Palin did better than she did with the CBS interviews, where she could not name A Supreme Court decision other than Roe v. Wade, and couldn't name a single newspaper or magazine. She was folksy and friendly and could give answers that all sounded “smart” by using her notes and memorized phrases. However, her answers all lacked of depth. Palin repeatly did not answer the questions and she spoke in generalities. She frequently mischaracterized her opponents’ policy ideas. The performance only showed that she does not have the knowledge and ability to deal with complex issue.
Check the poll responses on CNN and CBS. An overwhelming 87% of those polled by CNN felt that Biden was qualified to be President, but only 42% felt that way about Palin, and the CBS poll of undecided voters recorded similar results.
This debate is not about “Sarah Palin”. It is about our country! Our nation is on the verge of financial collapse. America deserves better. It is so clear that Palin is utterly unprepared for the office of Vice President.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/opinion/03brooks.html
If this is a rebound, our expectations of the scope and depth of knowledge, the ability to be articulate and the level of intelligence that we now accept in our potential leaders has sunk to new lows.
"There she was, resplendent in black, striding out like a power-walker, and greeting Joe Biden like an assertive salesman, first-naming him right off the bat.""She spoke with that calm, measured poise that marked her convention speech, not the panicked meanderings of her subsequent interviews."
"With a bemused smile and a never-ending flow of words, she laid out her place on the ticket — as the fearless neighbor for the heartland bemused by the idiocies of Washington."
Yes, Palin did better than she did with the CBS interviews, where she could not name A Supreme Court decision other than Roe v. Wade, and couldn't name a single newspaper or magazine. She was folksy and friendly and could give answers that all sounded “smart” by using her notes and memorized phrases. However, her answers all lacked of depth. Palin repeatly did not answer the questions and she spoke in generalities. She frequently mischaracterized her opponents’ policy ideas. The performance only showed that she does not have the knowledge and ability to deal with complex issue.
Check the poll responses on CNN and CBS. An overwhelming 87% of those polled by CNN felt that Biden was qualified to be President, but only 42% felt that way about Palin, and the CBS poll of undecided voters recorded similar results.
This debate is not about “Sarah Palin”. It is about our country! Our nation is on the verge of financial collapse. America deserves better. It is so clear that Palin is utterly unprepared for the office of Vice President.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/opinion/03brooks.html
Friday, September 19, 2008
The Era of Devolution is going to end
As the Wall Street financial crisis intensified, the U.S. presidential elections between the two parties are constantly changing. US Democrat Barack Obama topped two key national polls Thursday which showed the country's financial crisis reverberating through the White House race and "Palin power" fading for the Republican ticket.
http://www.france24.com/en/20080918-obama-rebounds-polls-economic-crisis-bites
The Quinnipiac survey suggested that economic arguments may be swaying support towards Obama.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=27407
I hope if Obama becomes next president, his will fulfill his promises.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/29/uselections2008.barackobama2
This situation reminded me that the Great Depression in 1930s brought an enormous change in American political leadership. The inability of the Republicans to overcome the economic catastrophe provided the Democrats with the chance to regain power. After the New Deal, national government reestablished political dominance, and Roosevelt was overwhelmingly reelected.
Since the subprime mortgage crisis appeared last year, our economic situation is going down. Recently, government took over the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the Federal Reserve loaned $85 billion to A.I.G, and the Lehman Brothers is bankrupted. Through this events I wonder whether or not our financial crisis today will be as disastrous as 1930’s.
Quickly, the Administration and Congress prepare an unprecedented rescue plan to reassure investors and protect financial stocks on Friday.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/sep2008/db20080919_366466.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_top+story
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=70df7c787f60072352ae4111f1e42a44977ecaa9
No matter what our economy would be, it is obvious that our national government is involving into market again. I believed we will end the era of devolution soon and the power will be returned to central government.
http://www.france24.com/en/20080918-obama-rebounds-polls-economic-crisis-bites
The Quinnipiac survey suggested that economic arguments may be swaying support towards Obama.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=27407
I hope if Obama becomes next president, his will fulfill his promises.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/29/uselections2008.barackobama2
This situation reminded me that the Great Depression in 1930s brought an enormous change in American political leadership. The inability of the Republicans to overcome the economic catastrophe provided the Democrats with the chance to regain power. After the New Deal, national government reestablished political dominance, and Roosevelt was overwhelmingly reelected.
Since the subprime mortgage crisis appeared last year, our economic situation is going down. Recently, government took over the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the Federal Reserve loaned $85 billion to A.I.G, and the Lehman Brothers is bankrupted. Through this events I wonder whether or not our financial crisis today will be as disastrous as 1930’s.
Quickly, the Administration and Congress prepare an unprecedented rescue plan to reassure investors and protect financial stocks on Friday.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/sep2008/db20080919_366466.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_top+story
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=70df7c787f60072352ae4111f1e42a44977ecaa9
No matter what our economy would be, it is obvious that our national government is involving into market again. I believed we will end the era of devolution soon and the power will be returned to central government.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Celebrate the Consititution Day
Wednesday, Sept. 17
Happy Constitution Day!
"On this occasion we celebrate the courage of the Constitution's drafters and recommit ourselves to making the United States a more perfect union," President Bush says in a proclamation.
Constitution Day Quiz
1. The average age of the framers or Founding Fathers was approximately:
A. 30
B. 40
C. 50
D. 60
2. Who is popularly known as "the father of the Constitution?"
A. Ben Franklin
B. Thomas Jefferson
C. James Madison
D. George Washington
3. Questions have been raised about the eligibility of both John McCain and Barack Obama to serve as president because of their place of birth. The Constitution requires that the president:
A. Be a naturalized citizen
B. Be a natural-born citizen
C. Have resided in the United States for at least 10 years
D. Be a natural-born citizen and a resident within the United States at least 14 years
4. If a gay couple married under the laws of California moves to Kansas where gay marriage is not recognized as legal:
A. Kansas is obligated to recognize the marriage under California law
B. Kansas is not obligated to recognize the marriage under California law
C. Kansas is obligated to petition a federal court to resolve the matter
D. The legal obligation of Kansas is presently unclear
5. Prior to the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920:
A. Women did not have the right to vote for president
B. Women in certain states had the right to vote for president
C. All women had the right to vote for president
D. Women married to landowners had the right to vote for president
6. The phrase "the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means" is stated in:
A. Article I of the Constitution on legislative authority
B. Article II of the Constitution on executive authority
C. Article III of the Constitution on judicial authority
D. Judicial decisions by the Supreme Court itself
7. Electors in each state are assigned to a presidential candidate based upon:
A. Winner takes all
B. Proportion of the popular vote the candidate wins
C. Whatever formula the state decides
D. None of the above
8. With regard to education, the Constitution explicitly provides:
A. A fundamental right to a basic education for every American
B. Federal oversight of education
C. A system of public and private education
D. None of the above
9. Which of the following is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution (including its amendments)?
A. The right to keep and bear arms
B. Separation of church and state
C. The right of association
D. The right to privacy
10. According to the Constitution, in order to run for the U.S. House of Representatives, a candidate must:
A. Reside in the state where elected for 5 years
B. Reside in the state at the time of declaring candidacy
C. Reside in the state when elected
D. Reside in the congressional district to be represented
ANSWERS: 1. B, 2. C, 3. D, 4. D, 5. B, 6. D, 7. C, 8. D, 9. A, 10. C
Happy Constitution Day!
"On this occasion we celebrate the courage of the Constitution's drafters and recommit ourselves to making the United States a more perfect union," President Bush says in a proclamation.
Constitution Day Quiz
1. The average age of the framers or Founding Fathers was approximately:
A. 30
B. 40
C. 50
D. 60
2. Who is popularly known as "the father of the Constitution?"
A. Ben Franklin
B. Thomas Jefferson
C. James Madison
D. George Washington
3. Questions have been raised about the eligibility of both John McCain and Barack Obama to serve as president because of their place of birth. The Constitution requires that the president:
A. Be a naturalized citizen
B. Be a natural-born citizen
C. Have resided in the United States for at least 10 years
D. Be a natural-born citizen and a resident within the United States at least 14 years
4. If a gay couple married under the laws of California moves to Kansas where gay marriage is not recognized as legal:
A. Kansas is obligated to recognize the marriage under California law
B. Kansas is not obligated to recognize the marriage under California law
C. Kansas is obligated to petition a federal court to resolve the matter
D. The legal obligation of Kansas is presently unclear
5. Prior to the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920:
A. Women did not have the right to vote for president
B. Women in certain states had the right to vote for president
C. All women had the right to vote for president
D. Women married to landowners had the right to vote for president
6. The phrase "the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means" is stated in:
A. Article I of the Constitution on legislative authority
B. Article II of the Constitution on executive authority
C. Article III of the Constitution on judicial authority
D. Judicial decisions by the Supreme Court itself
7. Electors in each state are assigned to a presidential candidate based upon:
A. Winner takes all
B. Proportion of the popular vote the candidate wins
C. Whatever formula the state decides
D. None of the above
8. With regard to education, the Constitution explicitly provides:
A. A fundamental right to a basic education for every American
B. Federal oversight of education
C. A system of public and private education
D. None of the above
9. Which of the following is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution (including its amendments)?
A. The right to keep and bear arms
B. Separation of church and state
C. The right of association
D. The right to privacy
10. According to the Constitution, in order to run for the U.S. House of Representatives, a candidate must:
A. Reside in the state where elected for 5 years
B. Reside in the state at the time of declaring candidacy
C. Reside in the state when elected
D. Reside in the congressional district to be represented
ANSWERS: 1. B, 2. C, 3. D, 4. D, 5. B, 6. D, 7. C, 8. D, 9. A, 10. C
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
