Heath Care Anyone?

On Monday, September 24, 2007, President Bush and Congress met to debate over a health care program that would support more than ten million Americans. The main debate goes back to the principles of each party, the Republican Party advocated by Bush versus the Democratic controlled Congress. It is a Republican belief that the government should take a very low part in a person’s life, by passing this bill; a huge amount of money would be paid for by the government and would be the first step to government run health care system. The Democrats believe that the government should provide for the people and a great way for them to do this would be to pass this program to protect children. The new program that was recently compromised would be to have a total of 60 billion dollars for five years, which is an increase of 35 billion from the previous program that supported 6.6 million children. Both sides agree that this is a massive amount of money, but what they cannot agree on is if it is worth the money. Democrats feel that if they do not, the children currently enrolled will be at a loss, and that the other children are in desperate need for the health care. However, Bush says that the amount of money this requires will deplete at least a dozen states of its money in the next month. Democrats are starting an attack to make it seem that Bush and Republicans are against children, and because of this, the bill will most likely be passed in Congress, and could destroy Bush if he goes ahead with the veto. I do not know where I stand for on health care, I am most likely on the Republican side, because the funds of the government are too spread out to put another huge debt on the country. A budget report shows that if this bill is passed, than in two months a dozen states that will run out of money, how could this be helping children. I do worry about he children that will be affected by not renewing the plan, maybe the way to reach a compromise to ensure the state’s and the children’s security is to lower the amount of money required. 60 billion dollars was a huge increase than what was expected, and will cause bankruptcy of too many states. The debt is just too high and our resources are too spread out to be able to pass a bill like this. However, I believe the Democrats are being unfair and unjust in pushing this health care. They are trying to make it seem that President Bush is against children. It is the Republican belief to limit the government’s role in the people’s lives; he is doing what his political belief system dictates that people should take care of themselves with as little federal government interference as possible. He in no way is against children in any way, he just believes that this heath care measure will in the long run just create more damage than it can help.

Andrew Meyer's SHOCKING Arrest

On monday, September 17, 2007, Senator John Kerry attended a question and answer session at the University of Florida. During this event, a jounalism student named Andrew Meyer was called on to ask a question. All of the sudden, Meyer started a rant and personal attack on John Kerry. After gong over the one minute limit for asking a question, Meyer became angry about his microphone being cut and continued his rant. However, security quickly reacted and tried to remove Meyer from the microphone and take him out of the forum. Meyer started to scramble and tried to get away from security. After struggling, Meyer was forced to the ground but was still trying to get away. As a result, a officer took out a taser and used it against Meyer. The video of this incident quickly circulated through the internet and is now a hotly debated topic. The main question is if police used excessive force in dealing with Meyer. Were they trying to take away his freedom of speech and ability to speak out. Police are charging Meyer with disturbing the peace and resisting arrest, but is this fair. Meyer was only speaking out against a politician that he did not like, which is a constituinal right. Even though he did resist arrest, was the use of a taser warrranted. Personally, it is my belief that the use of the taser was justified. To me, after watching the video, it is clear that Meyer was just trying to call attention, and really did try to get the police to act in this way. While being pinned down, he screamed for the rest of the people at the forum to watch what the police were doing. He was trying to force the police into doing something that looked bad. Meyer could of been escorted out after exceeding his time limit, but he had to struggle with police and call attention to himself. Furthermore, his pain of being tasered to me sounds extremely fake, screaming "OW OW OW OW" is just not a natural reaction to pain. He just wanted to get attention and make it seem that he was being abused. He was given his time to speak, he had his constitional right. Although, he just kept going, how else could security get him to stop talking, asking him politely would just not do the trick. Police are able to use any reasonable force necessary to subdue a person if they are resisting, which is a main reason why police even carry tasers. Meyer in my opinion was just trying to start a riot and panic and make the government appear bad with his fake cries, it was just for the spot light. However, if you do not take my word, view the video on youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgrFSHZfD1o and decide for yourself. Was his constitutional right abused and did police use excessive force, or was security's actions justified? Was Meyer faking in order to give a negative view of Kerry and the government, or was it completely natural?

The Effective Surge in Iraq according to Petraeus

The result of General Petraeus' report was convered by most all news sources, and is still being talked about. Whether or not the surge in Iraq is effective and if the United States needs to keep troops their. Petraeus said that it is his own beliefs that the surge of about 30,000 men to Iraq was effective and did its purpose. Now that it has, some soldiers from this surge will be able to come back home. Petraus' report led President Bush to a state of the union address about the situation. Bush's speech seemed similiar, that the surge has done its purpose, and now soldiers can come back. Bush told that by Christmas, the numbers from the surge and more, a number around 57,000, will be coming home. Bush facing massive critizism had to promise troop withdrawl, or his polls would drop even lower. The main debate in this report is whether or not troops are needed in Iraq. Now that the previous government was taken out and a Democracy has been establish, Bush and others believe that troops are need to secure the new government. Iraq itself is not politically and miliitarily secure enough to be able to defend their new found freedom, and that pulling out would cause a collapse which would just be wasting all the men that lost their lives. However, some believe that it does not matter because the US itself is facing too many problems to be spread this thin that soon, the US will be the one in danger. The great thing I see in this debate though, is that both sides show support for the troops, they have not been forgotten and both sides are working for them. But, how can troops fight when one side says they are important and the other that they are wasting their time because Iraq cannot turn to a Democracy. Morale must be falling, and if that happens, then a correlation to performance in Iraq will most likely be seen.