http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/30/arizona.iraqi.daughter/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
On October 20 Faleh Hassan Almaleki, 48, hit Noor Faleh Almaleki, his 20 year old daughter, and her friend Amal Edan Khalaf, in a parking lot with the vehicle he was driving. The incident occurred in Peoria, Arizona, a town about 13 miles northwest of Phoenix. Faleh Hassan Almaleki says that he went after his daughter because he was angry at her. "She had become too 'Westernized' and was not living according to [the family's] traditional Iraq[i] values." Faleh Hassan Almaleki was taken into custody at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, according to the Marshals Service. The reason why Faleh Hassan Almaleki was in Atlanta was not immediately known. After the incident, according to police, Noor Faleh Almaleki was hospitalized with life-threatening injuries and Amal Edan Khalaf did not receive life-threatening injuries. Earlier this week, police said that both women remained hospitalized.
In my opinion, I think Faleh Hassan Almaleki is a physcho. And I feel terrible for Noor Faleh Almaleki and her friend. They did absolutely nothing wrong. I think it's wrong that Noor's father expects her to live according to traditional Iraqi standards. I feel that she lives in America, she is 20 years old, and she has the right to make her own decisions and choices. Therefore, she should be able to be free to decide for herself how she wants to dress and present herself. Besides how I feel about the expectations Noor's father has for her, I think he's out of his mind to go out and hit her with his vehicle. That's insane! How could a father do that to his own daughter?! I firmly believe that he is a man with some serious physiological problems and needs to be given some help. But more than anything I feel that he should be kept away from his daughter or at least monitored when he is around her. If I were Noor I would want nothing to do with my crazy-maniac father. And I feel that when deciding what Mr. Almaleki's punishments are going to be, Noor's safety should be taken into consideration. And I think that when Noor is better her view on the circumstance should also be taken into account. If she feels comfortable saying, "hey, he's my father just let it be," okay then. But if she feels in danger and says, "Please keep him away from me," then different measures should be taken.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Pilots who missed airport may face license suspension or revocation
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/27/airliner.fly.by/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
The two northwest airline pilots that were involved in last week's overflight of the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport are expected to have their licenses either revoked or suspended as early as Tuesday. (Oct. 27) The two pilots who were flying the plane were Timothy B. Cheney, age 53, and Richard I. Cole, age 54. The two lost contact with any airport for an hour and a half and overshot the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport, flying all the way into Wisconsin. Cheneny and Cole both told investigators that they were using personal laptop computers during the flight and lost track of time. This however, is a violation of the Northwest company policy. They said that they only became aware of the plane's location after a flight attendant asked about the landing time.
In this particular situation I don't feel that Cheney and Cole's licenses should be completely taken away, but I do believe they should be suspended until further information is uncovered. I don't think it is that serious of a deal that they overshot the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport because they weren't hurting anyone. However, by losing contact with the airports caused an uproar and fear that the plane had been taken over by hi-jackers or something. I do believe that when a pilot is flying a plane they should be totally and completely focused on that. They have other peoples' lives in their hands. I do understand that being a pilot can get somewhat boring just sitting up there watching the clouds go by while the plane is on autopilot, but it is their job to get the passengers from point A to point B safely and as on time as possible. When I hear of them using laptop computers while they are flying an airplane I relate it to texting and driving. People do it but it is not safe. And I think the same goes for flying airplanes, more so even because you have hundreds of peoples' lives in your hands. And I believe that some sort of punishment should be given out to these pilots because it is against company policy, and I'm assuming that they have done it many times before also. So, instead of completely taking their license away, maybe place them on some sort of probation or something.
Joe believes that the pilots were sleeping while flying the plane and feels that they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Obviously he has no mercy what so ever for either of them. Me on the other hand, I feel they should just be given some sort of probabtion because everybody makes mistakes. I understand they have many peoples' lives in their hands but no one is perfect. You can check out the rest of Joe's opinion at: http://jumpingjoeblog.blogspot.com/
The two northwest airline pilots that were involved in last week's overflight of the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport are expected to have their licenses either revoked or suspended as early as Tuesday. (Oct. 27) The two pilots who were flying the plane were Timothy B. Cheney, age 53, and Richard I. Cole, age 54. The two lost contact with any airport for an hour and a half and overshot the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport, flying all the way into Wisconsin. Cheneny and Cole both told investigators that they were using personal laptop computers during the flight and lost track of time. This however, is a violation of the Northwest company policy. They said that they only became aware of the plane's location after a flight attendant asked about the landing time.
In this particular situation I don't feel that Cheney and Cole's licenses should be completely taken away, but I do believe they should be suspended until further information is uncovered. I don't think it is that serious of a deal that they overshot the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport because they weren't hurting anyone. However, by losing contact with the airports caused an uproar and fear that the plane had been taken over by hi-jackers or something. I do believe that when a pilot is flying a plane they should be totally and completely focused on that. They have other peoples' lives in their hands. I do understand that being a pilot can get somewhat boring just sitting up there watching the clouds go by while the plane is on autopilot, but it is their job to get the passengers from point A to point B safely and as on time as possible. When I hear of them using laptop computers while they are flying an airplane I relate it to texting and driving. People do it but it is not safe. And I think the same goes for flying airplanes, more so even because you have hundreds of peoples' lives in your hands. And I believe that some sort of punishment should be given out to these pilots because it is against company policy, and I'm assuming that they have done it many times before also. So, instead of completely taking their license away, maybe place them on some sort of probation or something.
Joe believes that the pilots were sleeping while flying the plane and feels that they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Obviously he has no mercy what so ever for either of them. Me on the other hand, I feel they should just be given some sort of probabtion because everybody makes mistakes. I understand they have many peoples' lives in their hands but no one is perfect. You can check out the rest of Joe's opinion at: http://jumpingjoeblog.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Study: States can't afford death penalty
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/20/death.penalty/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
California houses 678 inmates on death row, but has not executed anyone in four years. But it does spend more than $130 million on the capital punishment system. Many people see this as a waste of funds and believe that it is taking away from other anti-crime and law enforcement programs. Currently, 35 states still have the death penalty but fewer and fewer executions are taking place each year. Death row seems to be turning into a sentence of life without parole. And that however, is becoming very expensive in a time of an economic shortfall. It is becoming expensive because more money has to go into increased security and police officers at the prisons. But, the Death Penalty Information Center study found that death penalty costs can average $10 million more per year per state than life sentences. Many death penalty proponents say part of the problem is that states have added unnecessary, time-consuming delays, and have been reluctant to carry out the death penalty that their own legislatures have enacted, and that the delays are what is causing the cost to go up. Some people believe that having the death penalty can offer powerful incentives in plea bargaining and could provide states with large savings in trial and incarceration costs. So, in the end it seems like it could be as simple as a flip of a coin to determine which would be more cost efficient, but the moral side of things is what the true controversy is. Becasue either way, whether they are on death row or serving a life sentence, if they are dangerous the security needs to be there to monitor them.
For once I feel like I don't really have an opinion on something. And of all things it is the death penalty, something that I feel a person should have a strong opinion on. If we focus on the cost side of it and what would be more cost efficient, whether to have the death penalty or not, it seems to be about the same. If we keep the death penalty it puts on a pressure on the people who have committed crimes to fess up to them because of the fear of the death penalty if they are proven guilty without admitting to it. But, if they admit to it then their sentence could be reduced to a life-long one. This could help reduce the costs of the court system because less lengthy trials would be being held because more people would be more likely to just fess up. But it could also somewhat increase the costs because the prison would have to house that many more inmates and higher that much more security personel. But according to the Death Penalty Information Center study the death penalty costs an extra $10 million per year per state more than life sentences. So there it is, doing away with the death penalty is the cost efficient way to go. But without the death penalty criminals will no longer have that fear lingering in their minds and have nothing forcing them to fess up. So, we could almost end up with more guilty criminals getting away with the crimes they have committed. But in my opinion I almost think a life sentence would be worse because you are caged in like an animal for the rest of your life. That's terrible. But I am aware that in many prisons and jails the inmates are allowed to do everyday activities just like they weren't incaged. So basically a life sentence turns out to be nothing more than being forced to live the rest of your life there like it is some sort of institution. The longer an inmate is held there and the more progress they show in their good behavior the more freedoms they will have, so basically after a few years of literally being behind bars they could almost be back to a normal life. So it roots back to the question of is a life sentence really severe enough, or is the death penalty a necessary thing?
California houses 678 inmates on death row, but has not executed anyone in four years. But it does spend more than $130 million on the capital punishment system. Many people see this as a waste of funds and believe that it is taking away from other anti-crime and law enforcement programs. Currently, 35 states still have the death penalty but fewer and fewer executions are taking place each year. Death row seems to be turning into a sentence of life without parole. And that however, is becoming very expensive in a time of an economic shortfall. It is becoming expensive because more money has to go into increased security and police officers at the prisons. But, the Death Penalty Information Center study found that death penalty costs can average $10 million more per year per state than life sentences. Many death penalty proponents say part of the problem is that states have added unnecessary, time-consuming delays, and have been reluctant to carry out the death penalty that their own legislatures have enacted, and that the delays are what is causing the cost to go up. Some people believe that having the death penalty can offer powerful incentives in plea bargaining and could provide states with large savings in trial and incarceration costs. So, in the end it seems like it could be as simple as a flip of a coin to determine which would be more cost efficient, but the moral side of things is what the true controversy is. Becasue either way, whether they are on death row or serving a life sentence, if they are dangerous the security needs to be there to monitor them.
For once I feel like I don't really have an opinion on something. And of all things it is the death penalty, something that I feel a person should have a strong opinion on. If we focus on the cost side of it and what would be more cost efficient, whether to have the death penalty or not, it seems to be about the same. If we keep the death penalty it puts on a pressure on the people who have committed crimes to fess up to them because of the fear of the death penalty if they are proven guilty without admitting to it. But, if they admit to it then their sentence could be reduced to a life-long one. This could help reduce the costs of the court system because less lengthy trials would be being held because more people would be more likely to just fess up. But it could also somewhat increase the costs because the prison would have to house that many more inmates and higher that much more security personel. But according to the Death Penalty Information Center study the death penalty costs an extra $10 million per year per state more than life sentences. So there it is, doing away with the death penalty is the cost efficient way to go. But without the death penalty criminals will no longer have that fear lingering in their minds and have nothing forcing them to fess up. So, we could almost end up with more guilty criminals getting away with the crimes they have committed. But in my opinion I almost think a life sentence would be worse because you are caged in like an animal for the rest of your life. That's terrible. But I am aware that in many prisons and jails the inmates are allowed to do everyday activities just like they weren't incaged. So basically a life sentence turns out to be nothing more than being forced to live the rest of your life there like it is some sort of institution. The longer an inmate is held there and the more progress they show in their good behavior the more freedoms they will have, so basically after a few years of literally being behind bars they could almost be back to a normal life. So it roots back to the question of is a life sentence really severe enough, or is the death penalty a necessary thing?
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
How many troops are enough for Afghanistan strategy?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/12/afghanistan.troops/index.html?eref=rss_politics
President Obama faces a very difficult decision; how many troops should he send to Afghanistan, if any, in order to be successful. General Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is requesting 40,000 more troops. On the other hand, Vice President Joe Biden is suggesting to use special forces and technology to reduce the number of al Qaeda insurgents on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Senator John McCain thinks that if we are going to send more troops to Iraq, adding any less than 40,000 would be a mistake. He doesn't think that the war could be won by sending fewer troops over. Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein said that Obama should take the recommendations of McChrystal if he is not planning on pulling out, but that it would be pointless if he has plans to pull out any time soon. But Republican Jim McGovern thinks that it would be a mistake for the Americans to increase the number of troops in Iraq. He feels that way because he thinks by increasing the number of troops it will put pressure on the Afghan government to step up to the plate, which it has not done so far. Originally, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's plan was to win the war in Iraq with smaller troop numbers and a large emphasis on technology, which would in turn let democracy take root. At the beginning of the war in 2003, troops quickly filled the country and were able to gain control of Baghdad. But in 2006, civil war broke out and U.S. forces struggled to maintain control of the cities they had once secured. Rumsfeld later said that no one was well-prepared for what would happen after major combat ended.
In my opinion, I think the whole war in Afghanistan has evolved into something more than I think our country should be involved in. It started off as a war on terrorism, and has turned into trying to set up a democracy over there. I think that it is their country, not ours, and that if they want a democracy and a civilized nation they will ask for our help in doing so or do it themselves. I think Obama should listen to General Stanley McChrystal if he is planning on sending any troops at all more over there. I think General Stanley McChrystal is the one who is in Afghanistan monitoring the troops and is seeing himself with his own eyes what is happening and going on. I believe that he is the one with the best perspective on the whole issue and that he should be listened to. But if President Obama wants to pull the trooops out of Afghanistan and call it quits, then I don't think it is worth sending any more troops over at all. So, I agree with Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein. I think Rumsfeld had a good plan in the beginning, but didn't have a plan set up for what would happen after the major combat was over. And right now, the major combat is over. So now what? No one seems to know. I think it is a decision that needs to be made rather quickly because our troops in Afghanistan do have families and do deserve to get back to them sometime in the near future. I don't think it's right for the government to keep dragging the war on, I think it's rather pointless. We are losing American lives and no longer gaining any ground on the war on terrorism. As I said before, the goal of the war itself has seemed to change. Our goal now seems to be more of setting up a democracy over there. I think we need to not be selfish in the fact that we need to worry about our own country and what is best for our citizens, but that is what we need to do. And I think it would be best if we pulled our troops out and called it good. And just worry about protecting our country from future attacks from our home ground.
Alexis feels that too many American lives are being lost in the battle. She says how numbers are just given to Americans of oh, "14 more were killed yesterday, and 8 the day before that." She says how to many Americans the lives being lost are just simply numbers and how they have no meaning to many Americans and how that is something that needs to change. And that many Americans who don't know anyone involved in the war have the mentality of "out of sight, out of mind," and how desperately that needs to change. I think that because she feels this way about the lives that are being lost that she would agree with me in that the troops should be pulled out. And that all the lives being lost are not worth what is being "accomplished."
You can read more about Alexis' opinion at: http://alexisnielsonssii.blogspot.com/
President Obama faces a very difficult decision; how many troops should he send to Afghanistan, if any, in order to be successful. General Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is requesting 40,000 more troops. On the other hand, Vice President Joe Biden is suggesting to use special forces and technology to reduce the number of al Qaeda insurgents on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Senator John McCain thinks that if we are going to send more troops to Iraq, adding any less than 40,000 would be a mistake. He doesn't think that the war could be won by sending fewer troops over. Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein said that Obama should take the recommendations of McChrystal if he is not planning on pulling out, but that it would be pointless if he has plans to pull out any time soon. But Republican Jim McGovern thinks that it would be a mistake for the Americans to increase the number of troops in Iraq. He feels that way because he thinks by increasing the number of troops it will put pressure on the Afghan government to step up to the plate, which it has not done so far. Originally, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's plan was to win the war in Iraq with smaller troop numbers and a large emphasis on technology, which would in turn let democracy take root. At the beginning of the war in 2003, troops quickly filled the country and were able to gain control of Baghdad. But in 2006, civil war broke out and U.S. forces struggled to maintain control of the cities they had once secured. Rumsfeld later said that no one was well-prepared for what would happen after major combat ended.
In my opinion, I think the whole war in Afghanistan has evolved into something more than I think our country should be involved in. It started off as a war on terrorism, and has turned into trying to set up a democracy over there. I think that it is their country, not ours, and that if they want a democracy and a civilized nation they will ask for our help in doing so or do it themselves. I think Obama should listen to General Stanley McChrystal if he is planning on sending any troops at all more over there. I think General Stanley McChrystal is the one who is in Afghanistan monitoring the troops and is seeing himself with his own eyes what is happening and going on. I believe that he is the one with the best perspective on the whole issue and that he should be listened to. But if President Obama wants to pull the trooops out of Afghanistan and call it quits, then I don't think it is worth sending any more troops over at all. So, I agree with Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein. I think Rumsfeld had a good plan in the beginning, but didn't have a plan set up for what would happen after the major combat was over. And right now, the major combat is over. So now what? No one seems to know. I think it is a decision that needs to be made rather quickly because our troops in Afghanistan do have families and do deserve to get back to them sometime in the near future. I don't think it's right for the government to keep dragging the war on, I think it's rather pointless. We are losing American lives and no longer gaining any ground on the war on terrorism. As I said before, the goal of the war itself has seemed to change. Our goal now seems to be more of setting up a democracy over there. I think we need to not be selfish in the fact that we need to worry about our own country and what is best for our citizens, but that is what we need to do. And I think it would be best if we pulled our troops out and called it good. And just worry about protecting our country from future attacks from our home ground.
Alexis feels that too many American lives are being lost in the battle. She says how numbers are just given to Americans of oh, "14 more were killed yesterday, and 8 the day before that." She says how to many Americans the lives being lost are just simply numbers and how they have no meaning to many Americans and how that is something that needs to change. And that many Americans who don't know anyone involved in the war have the mentality of "out of sight, out of mind," and how desperately that needs to change. I think that because she feels this way about the lives that are being lost that she would agree with me in that the troops should be pulled out. And that all the lives being lost are not worth what is being "accomplished."
You can read more about Alexis' opinion at: http://alexisnielsonssii.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
High court to decide if war memorial violates Constitution
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/05/supreme.court.veterans.cross/index.html?eref=rss_politics
The Mojave Cross sits in a quiet and lonely California desert. It was put there over 75 years ago by a group of veterans to serve as a war memorial. Now, it is boxed in plywood. It is boxed in plywood because it was ordered to be by the court. After all its years of sitting there, on what is now the Mojave National Preserve; government land, it is fighting to hold its place. People who oppose the placement of the cross say that it goes against the First Amendment's provision of separation of church and state. Riley Bembry, a man who served as a medic in World War I, was one of the veterans that helped set up the cross. He says it sits on top of a 4,000 foot plateau and served as a place of reflection for many returning veterans that retreated into the desert as a way to recover from the severe lung diseases caused by mustard gas attacks during the war. And each year an Easter service is held there, but until recently only locals knew of it. When the cross was first put up, no one seemed to care that it was there. But when the land changed ownership and went from just desert land to the Mojave National Preserve, it became an issue; It was now located on government land. It isn't uncommon for war memorials to have crosses on them or be faith related, but because this one is just in the shape of a cross and is located on government land, it's a problem. The people in charge of the preserve say that they would be happy to have a war memorial located on their preserve but that it would have to be in some other shape.
Personally, I don't think that it is that big of a deal. It's a cross, yes, it's been there for years, it was there before the government was even a part, it should be left alone and respected. I don't think that the government should just be able to step in and say it can't be there because "separation of church and state." Yes, church and government should be separate because everyone has different faiths, but this cross is just located on what is now government land. When the cross was originally placed on the plateau it was just desert, it was in no one's name specifically and was not government land. So by it just sitting there it's not effecting anyone or anything. It's not playing a part in what laws are passed or how people are treated. It's just sitting on a lonely plateau just like it always has. To me, the cross has no meaning. But to many locals I'm sure it does. And because of that I think if they were to take the plateau and put it into a private party's name the issue could easily be solved. Yes, it would be located right in the middle of a government preserve, which might tick the government off a little bit having to give up land right in the middle of their property, but then they could be satisfied in knowing that they no longer have a religious symbol on their land, and the veterans would be happy because their memorial wouldn't be being destroyed. But my true feelings are that it should just be left as it always has been. It's really not hurting anything; it sits on a plateau. And why go through all the effort to divide up the land and try to keep everyone happy when it has been there for years and nobody has blinked an eye at it. This issue is obviously only being brought up to bring it up. "Separation of Church and State." What about "in God we trust" on our money then? How is that okay but not a small cross in what used to be a desert?
The Mojave Cross sits in a quiet and lonely California desert. It was put there over 75 years ago by a group of veterans to serve as a war memorial. Now, it is boxed in plywood. It is boxed in plywood because it was ordered to be by the court. After all its years of sitting there, on what is now the Mojave National Preserve; government land, it is fighting to hold its place. People who oppose the placement of the cross say that it goes against the First Amendment's provision of separation of church and state. Riley Bembry, a man who served as a medic in World War I, was one of the veterans that helped set up the cross. He says it sits on top of a 4,000 foot plateau and served as a place of reflection for many returning veterans that retreated into the desert as a way to recover from the severe lung diseases caused by mustard gas attacks during the war. And each year an Easter service is held there, but until recently only locals knew of it. When the cross was first put up, no one seemed to care that it was there. But when the land changed ownership and went from just desert land to the Mojave National Preserve, it became an issue; It was now located on government land. It isn't uncommon for war memorials to have crosses on them or be faith related, but because this one is just in the shape of a cross and is located on government land, it's a problem. The people in charge of the preserve say that they would be happy to have a war memorial located on their preserve but that it would have to be in some other shape.
Personally, I don't think that it is that big of a deal. It's a cross, yes, it's been there for years, it was there before the government was even a part, it should be left alone and respected. I don't think that the government should just be able to step in and say it can't be there because "separation of church and state." Yes, church and government should be separate because everyone has different faiths, but this cross is just located on what is now government land. When the cross was originally placed on the plateau it was just desert, it was in no one's name specifically and was not government land. So by it just sitting there it's not effecting anyone or anything. It's not playing a part in what laws are passed or how people are treated. It's just sitting on a lonely plateau just like it always has. To me, the cross has no meaning. But to many locals I'm sure it does. And because of that I think if they were to take the plateau and put it into a private party's name the issue could easily be solved. Yes, it would be located right in the middle of a government preserve, which might tick the government off a little bit having to give up land right in the middle of their property, but then they could be satisfied in knowing that they no longer have a religious symbol on their land, and the veterans would be happy because their memorial wouldn't be being destroyed. But my true feelings are that it should just be left as it always has been. It's really not hurting anything; it sits on a plateau. And why go through all the effort to divide up the land and try to keep everyone happy when it has been there for years and nobody has blinked an eye at it. This issue is obviously only being brought up to bring it up. "Separation of Church and State." What about "in God we trust" on our money then? How is that okay but not a small cross in what used to be a desert?
Issue #3-Social Insecurity
The social security system was originally set up in 1935 to fight poverty. It is mostly known for supporting senior citizens but it also supports disabled workers, spouses and families of deceased workers, and children. The social security system is ran off of dollars taken out of current workers' paychecks. As you contribute to the fund during your working years, you receive a certain percentage of your contributions in return during your years of need, usually once you retire. Since 1983, more than enough dollars was being collected for the fund. But recently, we have way more senior citizens retiring and applying for social security benefits than we do young people entering the workforce. It is predicted that by 2017 the program will no longer be able to pull its own weight like it used to. In order for the social security system to be able to provide full benefits for everyone that is eligible through the year 2041 the government will have to repay the money it borrowed from the social security program. And after the government has repayed the system it will be able to function properly again, but only off of dollars collected through payroll taxes. So, it will still only be able to provide 60-80% of its promised benefits to its eligible people. Because of the predicted upcoming crisis, President Bush proposed allowing Americans to divert their Social Security payroll contributions to private investment accounts, but this idea was rejected by many legislators. Other people believe that with the social security system going bankrupt, that those who depend on it should be cut to a minimum. Meaning, that the system was originally put in place to keep those in need out of poverty, but has now evolved into a national retirement program. Other people feel that the social security system is strong as it is and that its people who depend on it such as many retirees, should not be cut of their benefits. They believe that the system is a good one in that you get out of it what you put into it.
I believe that the social security system is a good idea in that you get out of it what you put in to it, supposedly. But what I see happening to our generation is that we put in to it for our grandparents, but that the system won't be there for us once we hit the age of retirement. So, I have mixed feelings about dropping my chunk of change into the fund because I may never see it again. It may never come back to me like it is now coming back to all the baby boomers of our country. And because of that reason I support the plan that former President Bush proposed. I think it would be a good plan to have private investment accounts for social security. That way you are getting out of it what you put into it for sure. There's no question as to whether or not you are going to be left with nothing, you will have something. But then it leads me to think that if we are going to make social security a private investment, then it should the peoples' choice as to whether or not they want that money taken out of their check each week for their own personal social security, or if they would rather just not set up an account like that. So I think if they are going to continue to hit our paychecks weekly for social security, we should have some sort of gaurantee that it will be there for us in our old age. And even though the system was not originally intended to become a national retirement program, it works well to serve as one. But I will not be one to support the social security system unless I am gauranteed the fact that there will be a decent chunk of what I put into it for me in return later in life. I believe that it is only fair that way.
Former President Bush's thoughts and ideas on social security when he was in office.
Issue #1: War Dollars http://backstroker321.blogspot.com/
Issue #2: Spending What We Can Afford http://heathersanchez.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)