Drinking Age Change?

After reading 21 Is Less Than 18 by Alex Cheyenne I have to say that I do not agree with the author of this blog.  I believe that raising the age to drink from 21 to 18 would only cause additional problems for young teens not even fully out of their teenage years as well and legal issues.  At eighTEEN they are still considered a teenager and not a full adult.  This is simply giving a teenager just out of high school a slowing ticking bomb and more then likely will keep them from doing well or even choosing going to college.  Personally I think a lot of teenagers are so happy to graduate to run off to college and experience life, and it is unfortunately the drinking life and freedom that give them that much more of a push.  So increasing the drinking age would not help.  When you stated that it causes them to binge drink and drink and drive, how many people do you know 21 plus drinking and driving and binge drinking even though they do not realize it?  The fact is people will do what they want anytime in their life whether it is legal or not.  I think they law is completely fine at this point and gives a person 21 years to decide what they really want.  So I just do not believe changing the drinking age will make any difference other then a harmful one. 

"Tax Payers Dollars"

I believe that as a tax payer we should have the option of choosing to contribute to certain taxes.  For one people should not have to pay for something they do not agree with.  In example, I do not believe that we still need to be fighting a war that is not ours to be fought.  I would rather spend my tax money on improving out educational system or putting it to helping create more jobs in the United States.  How many people out there are struggling because they can not find a job?  The fact is many because most places ask for more then a high school diploma.  Let’s be honest people will drop out of fail because of the lack of money being provided to schools.  The activities that help keep children involved are always the first to go causing the drop out rate to increase.  In my opinion, I just believe that if we put more into the educational system we would get so many more positive results.  The children today are the adults of our future and what will run this country.  Let’s think about it, would we want a matured educated individual to put rules in place or an uneducated person?  Common sense asks that question.  I realize that certain taxes have to be paid as a citizen but there should be some sort of line that helps someone feel like their money is really going to make a difference in the world.  Some of my recommendations may not be what everyone agrees with using our tax dollars for but the article on NYTIMES supports that people do believe there are other ways our money could benefit the United States instead of the war.  Using the money for other causes would not be a bad idea.  I would also even contribute to improving the healthcare. 

What Are We Really Fighing For?

People and our US Government always point out the reasons why our soldiers should stay in Iraq but fail to point out the reasons on why they should not.  I believe  the reasons that they should not are far more important then the reasoning they are kept there. 

Everyone has their own reasoning but my number one reason is that far too many soldiers have died in the last couple of years in Iraq and for what?  How much have we really accomplished?  Yes our troops found and killed Osama Bin Laden but how many people died before he was killed?  I know that there is always a chance another person that is a threat to our country can show up but why keep people there when we are not in immediate danger?  We also are fighting a war that is not ours to be fought any longer or for the time being.  Yes there are other people in other countries that depend on our soldiers for their safety but while they fight for someone else’s freedom and safety they are losing their life and freedom.  Life is precious and can only be lived once.   US Today gives a poll on the amount of troops we have lost in the last couple of years that is rather shocking.  It is also so sad to know that so many soldiers have to go month after month and year after year without seeing their family or loved ones.  I know that our troops have just as much pride in themselves, as we do in them for risking their life’s to save others, and our country but when is enough, enough? 

The government also continues to want to keep soldiers in Iraq but who is paying for it?  Our tax payers.  This also supports why we are in the financial bind we are today.   Why not use the money to help repair the problems we are currently experiencing instead of the ones that we really don’t have?

Of course this is completely my opinion and others may have relevant reasoning on why we should keep our troops there. 

Is Paying Off Someone Really What it Comes Down to?

After reading the article, “Should we pay people to stop smoking?” by Jody Sindelar, I had a lot of thoughts run through my mind.  I believe the author Jody Sindelar’s intended audience would be people that are smokers in need of Medicaid.  Sindelar appears to have great credibility because she is a health economist and professor at Yale School of Public Health, and she also has performed some research that could help support her reasoning. 

I am a bit confused why our government would want to pay someone to quit smoking?  It’s obvious that a large portion of our healthcare cost goes to people that smoke or do not have the money to take care of their health because of smoking, but why spend a penny rewarding people?  In my opinion anyone smart knows that if money is waived in front of someone’s face, this would tempt them or temporarily stop their habit, but it never actually last in most cases.  The author uses previous studies to support her theory.  The author quotes, “Research on addiction has repeatedly demonstrated that small payments have persuaded even cocaine addicts to stop using”.  How long does it actually last is the real question.  There is a saying that goes, “money does not buy happiness”, so why does it have to try and buy someone’s choices?  Also how do we know the money they receive will be used for a good cause and not used to buy other drugs?

The author uses the following quote to try and help support she believes that paying smokers to stop would help with the cost of Medicaid, “Thirty-three percent of the Medicaid population smokes, compared with 20% of the U.S. population, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention”.  This is a high percentage but again why reward people with money?  They will already save money by choosing not to smoke. 

The author also mentions, “what if there was a way to save taxpayers dollars and improve Medicaid patients’ health?” First of all who would pay to have people administer the test or counseling?  There goes more money from everyone’s pocket.  I think just refusing to provide Medicaid for smokers would be a better idea and more cost efficient.  Why pay someone to do something that they know already would be good for their health?  I do not believe the author is not completely convinced it would be an easy fix as she quoted, “Another obstacle to implementation is a lack of research on how best to design such a program for low-income populations. While in previous studies of heroin users I found that paying higher incentive payments is both more powerful and more cost-effective, we do not know the best level of payments for Medicaid smokers.”  There are so many things to consider before a decision could be made.

I just do not feel this would be a fix.  Money would still be wasted administering the test, counseling, researching, and then paying off the recipients. 

Is Social Security a Reality for our Future?

After reading the article “Social Security -- Are you kidding me?” by LZ Granderson a couple of things have ran across my mind.  First thing my age group is definitely his intended audience, anyone under 40 for the most part which the author did mention.  The author LZ Granderson seems to have good credibility as he was named journalist of the year and being a senior writer and columnist for ESPN.  Surfing CNN you will also come across a lot of his articles. 

In his article he claims that Social Security will not be apart of our retirement, which I side with even prior to reading his article.  People in our generation definitely have to make sure we make other financial arrangements for our retirement.  The evidence he provides in support is politicians, use Social Security as a game piece to bring in voters in with their empty promises, and that politicians believe this a game going from election after election.  The author quotes, “We are not as mad about this switcheroo as much as we are mad that the reform can keeps getting kicked down a road that's getting shorter and shorter by a bunch of politicians who know better but are too afraid of losing voters”.  I strongly believe that they use the game for a temporary high.  I do not have any confidence in our government at this point.  I also believe that politicians are out for their money and only money.  All politicians tend to bring up anything that seem like it could improve our nation but really brings nothing but empty promises to the table. 

It is also obvious the author does not seem to have faith in the Democrats.  The author states, “The Democrats won't even support the modest changes recommended by the president's own debt commission, including phasing in a two-year increase in the retirement age over the next 65 years and raising the ceiling on payroll taxes”.

The author even brings up that Obama did not mention at any time a halt in his own paycheck or even people in the White House’s paycheck.  Instead it was our military that almost suffered along with our Social Security recipients.  Why would you take money from people that obviously need it and to those that sacrifice their lives to keep our freedom?  Why would you not cut money to those that can afford to have just a little less?  To me the targets to be cut should be obvious.

The author comes to a close with the following quotes, “The Great Depression gave birth to Social Security.  The Greatest Generation fed it and made it strong.  Today the sheer number of the baby boomers is slowly strangling it to death”.  He really does a good job at supporting his opinion.

Will it really create more jobs?

As part of Obama’s stimulus plan, he suggest that getting your money now instead of over years to replace equipment will create more jobs?

After reading over the article Boost spending on equipment, create more jobs? By Annalyn Censky @CNNMoney on CNN, I thought I would share my opinion.

I find this article is interesting because I am not 100 percent sold that it would actually work.  It suggest that giving more money upfront to replace equipment that probably has another 10-20 years left in it will help employers open up funds to hire more people.  It is like the saying goes; do not try to replace something that not broken.  I think this would open doors to business’s buying new equipment to better their current environment but not hire more people. 

Yes it could possibly offer more factory jobs in the end, as the article suggested, but not every American can work in a factory.  More and more people are working well over the retirement age and certainly could not work in that type of environment.