Reducing Taxes (Issue #1)

The Republican party advocates reducing taxes.  Supporters of this idea believe that consumers and businesses will have more money to spend. As a result, the economy can be stimulated quicker. Also, businesses will expand as the economy grows so more jobs can be created, decreasing unemployment. Those against tax reduction believe tax cuts will lead to greater budget deficits that will eventually crumble the economy. The tax cuts will reduce the amount of money that funds defense, Social Security, Medicare and education. Arguers against reducing taxes believe that tax cuts cause bigger problems for American children.
Liberals would argue that tax cuts do not help the economy, especially in a recession. On the contrary, as Conservatives would believe, tax cuts can help an economy in the dumps. Here is a scenario, if taxes were cut 10% across the board, workers would gain 10% more of their wages to spend. This money would stimulate other businesses. As businesses begin to prosper, they will be able to dish out more money to their workers in wage increases. And, like a cycle, workers will have more money to spend to stimulate the economy. Here's the best part, because workers are gaining more in wages due to tax cuts, the government will gain tax revenues greater than or equal to tax revenues before the tax cut. Also, unemployment will decrease and  the government can gain more tax revenue. If the government is still spending too much money, than another tax cut can be imposed. If this trend were to continue there would be a rapid decline in the national deficit. Economist Milton Friedman is conservative and promotes tax cuts. In and interview between Milton Friedman and Peter Robinson, Friedman explains that tax cuts will give consumers more power to decide how to spend their money. Also, the government will not have high budget deficits if they don't have much money to spend.



Issue #2 - http://emilyewblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/issue-2-offshore-outsourcing.html
Issue #3 - http://ksteffss1.blogspot.com/2011/02/budget-deficit-and-social-security.html

Taking steps back to recovery

In recent polls, three-fourths of the U.S. population believes that the countries economy is struggling. Our country's unemployment rate is declining because we are not feeding the fires of our economy. Perhaps the government is trying hard, which the people may not understand. These things aren't fixed instantaneously. Also, another poll shows that nearly half of the Americans believe that our economy is the most important issue. If our economy fails, the country will probably fail. The first priority should be the economy and not so much the healthcare issue. As a country, we should try to focus on one big issue at a time. If we try to handle too many issues at once, we will never accomplish anything. First, we must get our economy back on its feet. Then, we can tackle other issues, such as health care. Also, we should not use our political parties as scapegoats to place blame for our countries problems.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/01/poll.election/index.html?hpt=Sbin

Video games possibly bashed by government censorship?

California contemplates implementing a law to censor violent video games. But, the real question is whether or not it is in the government's power to censor these video games. From the stand point of a video game creator, video game design is an art. Hence, it is a form of expression. A video game creator should have the freedom to express their art. The ESRB rating system exists to create a balance by preventing children from buying games without the presence of an adult. But, if a person of the required age buys a game, the content should not be censored, as it is suited to their age. It is not the state's responsibility to censor content from children. That is up to the parents. Also, the state cannot decide whether a child is mature enough or not to handle playing a game that is beyond their age. If a child takes a game to seriously, especially a violent game, they should not play it, but--again--that is up to the parents, not the state.

Gun Down the Aliens!

Reports from Israel claim that a UFO had been flying in restricted air space over a nuclear power plant. To follow protocol, the Israel Air Force gunned down the UFO. However, there has been discussion on whether gunning the UFO was actually following protocol, as it could've been just a harmless small motored vehicle. As a result, Israel has been receiving some flak.

Israel has its protocols to follow. What they did was perfectly reasonable. If the UFO had harmful intentions upon the nuclear power plant, there could have been a disaster. If the UFO was manned, the person inside should be sure to have a functioning radio so they aren't mistaken for a terrorist and ELIMINATED! The Israel Air Force should have salvaged the wreckage. If it was an advanced piece of aircraft, Israel would have an advantage in avionics. If I was an Israeli, that's what I would do.

The Metrodome was terrible anyway... New stadium perhaps?

Since the roof of the Metrodome fell through, maybe its time to build a new stadium. One that, perhaps, could bring in some serious revenue to the state of Minnesota. Some people say it's a waste of tax payer’s money that can be spent on more important things which might be true. But, a stadium that could bring revenue to the state and allow our Vikings to play in Minnesota would probably be a win altogether. And, if we don't build a stadium, we could possibly lose the team all together. As a fan, I would like to keep the Vikings and, let's face it, the Metrodome has seen it's days and is one of the least attractive stadiums in the league. I think we should have built a Vikings stadium first, before building the gophers one. The longer we stand around wondering what to do the more the price of building a stadium will go up. It's now or pretty much never. 50 years from now the nay Sayers will be arguing the same point, "that we could use the money on more important things" or "Now is not the time". Will there ever be a right time to build a new stadium, or is it always going to be just a waste of money. We're going to have to build a stadium sometime. For some, a Vikings team is important to them. There part of Minnesota history whether you like it or not and we should at least give them a place to stay that they can be proud of. Let's keep our Minnesota history.