~ My belief that less government is the best goverment and that government should primarily be led on a local and statewide basis.
~ My belief that Life is mandated by the constitution of the United States and every human being should be afforded that opportunity.
~ My belief that we should be frugal in our spending.
~ My belief that a strong national defense is a necessity.
~ My belief that the founding fathers wrote the constitution in a way that would stand the test of time and not be challenged by far leftists who rule from the bench.
~ My belief that we have three, equal but separate branches of government.
~ And, most importantly, my belief that we are One Nation Under God and that under God is the absolute best place we could ever be.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Thoughts on College Funding
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards recently said he would institute a "college for all" program for everyone. Let me be honest, I haven't read anything he said, just noticed it in a headline. But I too feel the same way, and if that makes me a liberal, so be it, but the outcome of college for all would be best for this nation. Here are My Inner Thoughts on College Funding...
If you desire to go to college after high school, whether it be a technical, community, or 4-year university, the government would fund your education. Now, I'm not into funding things for certain types of people and not for everyone (I believe we need to treat all citizens equally), so ANYONE and EVERYONE regardless of the families' income gets the opportunity to go to college that is funded by the government.
Now, you say, what about those who slack off in college, anyone who drops below a C average would automatically be put on probation and if they don't improve will lose all government funding for their education and be forced to use the traditional (current) methods of student loans, student jobs, etc. This prevents us from having people take advantage of a free ride and not doing anything along the way. We'll get ya into the college, you prove you are worthy enough for us to continue to fund your education.
Won't this be expensive, you ask. Yes, but I would argue it would equal itself out in the long run. Studies show that people who graduate college make more than the people who just enter the workforce after high school, this would mean they would pay more taxes and be able to spend/invest more money thus boosting the economy. We can't argue with that can we?
I would also argue that people that graduate college would automatically be disqualifed from any sort of welfare programs such as food stamps, medicare, etc because they have the opportunity to be more productive citizens, just prefer not to be. It's time we stop rewarding laziness and child birthing just to get more money (And yes we all know people who fall into this). Now, of course, there are always exceptions to the rule and we must willing to hear and evaluate those.
I also believe this would create more jobs and lower the unemployment first. Let's look at the latter first, with more people being skilled, there would be few excuses for them not to be able to find a decent job (and as much as it may not be preferred, relocating is always a viable option). With more people being skilled, I believe more people would be opening restaurants, hotels, small businesses, auto shops, etc thus creating more jobs. We can't argue with lower employment rates and more jobs can we?
And lastly, I think the economy would greatly be benefitted from this program through people having more money available to spend/invest. And when people spend more money at stores, employers are more likely to hire more help, raise salaries, or improve the overall business. This is good!
College Funding = Fewer people on welfare programs, more tax revenue, more jobs, greater economy, etc. Anything we can do to make college more affordable and accesible for ALL people, I'm for. If that makes me a liberal, so be it. But I don't know any conservative who would argue with a booming economy, more jobs, lower unemployment, and more business!
And those are My Inner Thoughts on College Funding. Discuss away!
If you desire to go to college after high school, whether it be a technical, community, or 4-year university, the government would fund your education. Now, I'm not into funding things for certain types of people and not for everyone (I believe we need to treat all citizens equally), so ANYONE and EVERYONE regardless of the families' income gets the opportunity to go to college that is funded by the government.
Now, you say, what about those who slack off in college, anyone who drops below a C average would automatically be put on probation and if they don't improve will lose all government funding for their education and be forced to use the traditional (current) methods of student loans, student jobs, etc. This prevents us from having people take advantage of a free ride and not doing anything along the way. We'll get ya into the college, you prove you are worthy enough for us to continue to fund your education.
Won't this be expensive, you ask. Yes, but I would argue it would equal itself out in the long run. Studies show that people who graduate college make more than the people who just enter the workforce after high school, this would mean they would pay more taxes and be able to spend/invest more money thus boosting the economy. We can't argue with that can we?
I would also argue that people that graduate college would automatically be disqualifed from any sort of welfare programs such as food stamps, medicare, etc because they have the opportunity to be more productive citizens, just prefer not to be. It's time we stop rewarding laziness and child birthing just to get more money (And yes we all know people who fall into this). Now, of course, there are always exceptions to the rule and we must willing to hear and evaluate those.
I also believe this would create more jobs and lower the unemployment first. Let's look at the latter first, with more people being skilled, there would be few excuses for them not to be able to find a decent job (and as much as it may not be preferred, relocating is always a viable option). With more people being skilled, I believe more people would be opening restaurants, hotels, small businesses, auto shops, etc thus creating more jobs. We can't argue with lower employment rates and more jobs can we?
And lastly, I think the economy would greatly be benefitted from this program through people having more money available to spend/invest. And when people spend more money at stores, employers are more likely to hire more help, raise salaries, or improve the overall business. This is good!
College Funding = Fewer people on welfare programs, more tax revenue, more jobs, greater economy, etc. Anything we can do to make college more affordable and accesible for ALL people, I'm for. If that makes me a liberal, so be it. But I don't know any conservative who would argue with a booming economy, more jobs, lower unemployment, and more business!
And those are My Inner Thoughts on College Funding. Discuss away!
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Thoughts on the Electoral College
Mike: Jiffey Jeff Isbell...we should host like a political talk show or something... What do you think of the electoral college man? Would you be a proponent of replacing it with a direct election?
Me: Lol. We should. I say, get rid of it. I would also propose to get rid of national nominating conventions. Let the people decide who they want to be their nominee and their president directly. I am more than certain that Americans are more than capable to elect the leaders of their choice. I think this would decrease voter apathy and let people know that their vote does count both in the primaries and the general election.
Mike: Politically Jeff, I couldn't agree more with you man.
I've been thinking about it lately since I have to read this book for my American Presidency class, "Why the Electoral College is bad for America," lol creative title, right?
The book basically argues that the current system violates political equality (winner take all for electoral votes in states make it so the votes for the electoral loser of a state dont count as you probably knew as an Illinois republican).
I'll write you in for 2008 ballot and when you become president, you can scrap the electoral system mmk?
Me: If you use Illinois for instance, the voters of 90 or so counties don't really matter. You have Madison, St. Clair (Metro-St. Louis Counties), Cook, DuPage, Kane, and a few more of the collar counties that pretty much decide for the entire state.
If you looked at the electoral map from 2004, you'll notice that Bush took the majority of the counties in Illinois with exception of the East St. Louis and Chicago-land area, but yet the state went for Kerry. We all might as well not vote as our votes don't matter in the current system.
Scrap the system and give me a binding vote not just an advisory vote, which really is the best way to look at it. We're getting advisory votes, votes that don't really mean anything other than a nice recommendation.
Me: Lol. We should. I say, get rid of it. I would also propose to get rid of national nominating conventions. Let the people decide who they want to be their nominee and their president directly. I am more than certain that Americans are more than capable to elect the leaders of their choice. I think this would decrease voter apathy and let people know that their vote does count both in the primaries and the general election.
Mike: Politically Jeff, I couldn't agree more with you man.
I've been thinking about it lately since I have to read this book for my American Presidency class, "Why the Electoral College is bad for America," lol creative title, right?
The book basically argues that the current system violates political equality (winner take all for electoral votes in states make it so the votes for the electoral loser of a state dont count as you probably knew as an Illinois republican).
I'll write you in for 2008 ballot and when you become president, you can scrap the electoral system mmk?
Me: If you use Illinois for instance, the voters of 90 or so counties don't really matter. You have Madison, St. Clair (Metro-St. Louis Counties), Cook, DuPage, Kane, and a few more of the collar counties that pretty much decide for the entire state.
If you looked at the electoral map from 2004, you'll notice that Bush took the majority of the counties in Illinois with exception of the East St. Louis and Chicago-land area, but yet the state went for Kerry. We all might as well not vote as our votes don't matter in the current system.
Scrap the system and give me a binding vote not just an advisory vote, which really is the best way to look at it. We're getting advisory votes, votes that don't really mean anything other than a nice recommendation.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Thoughts on GOP Pres Candidates
Rudy Guiliani: I want to like Rudy. In fact, he is a really personable and friendly guy. I like that he's a fiscal conservative, however, his social views really bother me. He's pro-choice, pro gay marriage, and not exactly pro-2nd Amendment. (Met him at a rally for a congressional candidate here in IL)
Fred Thompson: All "christian evangelicals" are supposed to like Fred Thompson, right? We'll I think he has some potential, however, his lackadaisical attitude is going to have to be overcome and quickly. His fundraising shows that he's not quite the pick of all christian evangelicals, the jury is still out.
Mitt Romney: Seems to be good on the issues, however, I'm still a bit concerned about his "evolution" on the issues. He will undoubtedly (and has been) labeled as a flip-flop on issues ranging from abortions to guns. I want to like you, but I'm still not convinced, Mitt.
John McCain: When I met him at a Chicago fundraiser for a congressional candidate, he just didn't strike me as an outgoing, extroverted type of guy. I think this visible through his campaign. He's not always been a friend of social conservatives and frankly I don't think he's in the best position to be running our country.
Ron Paul: I believe Ron Paul to be the only candidate to attempt to do what he says he wants to do; and that scares the crap out of me. We want a small government, Ron, not anarchy, sir.
The rest.... I don't know enough about them to say much. If you have any you'd like my take on, let me know and give me a couple days to do research on them. I know, I know, not much info on the listed candidates but I'm about as interested in the presidential campaign right now as a man is with soap operas. Try to convince me why I should support your candidate as right now, I have absolutely no idea who I'd vote for if the election was tomorrow.
Fred Thompson: All "christian evangelicals" are supposed to like Fred Thompson, right? We'll I think he has some potential, however, his lackadaisical attitude is going to have to be overcome and quickly. His fundraising shows that he's not quite the pick of all christian evangelicals, the jury is still out.
Mitt Romney: Seems to be good on the issues, however, I'm still a bit concerned about his "evolution" on the issues. He will undoubtedly (and has been) labeled as a flip-flop on issues ranging from abortions to guns. I want to like you, but I'm still not convinced, Mitt.
John McCain: When I met him at a Chicago fundraiser for a congressional candidate, he just didn't strike me as an outgoing, extroverted type of guy. I think this visible through his campaign. He's not always been a friend of social conservatives and frankly I don't think he's in the best position to be running our country.
Ron Paul: I believe Ron Paul to be the only candidate to attempt to do what he says he wants to do; and that scares the crap out of me. We want a small government, Ron, not anarchy, sir.
The rest.... I don't know enough about them to say much. If you have any you'd like my take on, let me know and give me a couple days to do research on them. I know, I know, not much info on the listed candidates but I'm about as interested in the presidential campaign right now as a man is with soap operas. Try to convince me why I should support your candidate as right now, I have absolutely no idea who I'd vote for if the election was tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
