Abolishing the Death Penalty

Not even halfway through reading This is America!'s blog about abolishing the death penalty, I could already tell I was veering in the same direction as the blogger. The death penalty not only seems unjust and puts innocent people to death but also appears to let someone who should be paying for the crime walk away without suffering.

What I mean by suffering is whatever crime they committed to be sentenced to something as death, why not utilize their lifetime in prison and force them to give back to the community? Maybe even the family affected by their actions? It seems unfair to the affected party to put a person (who very well knows they are going to spend their remaining time in prison) to death. They took something away from the justice system and they need to give back to it the right way.

As for the topic of being innocent until proven guilty, I feel that rule of thumb has been a lost cause for ages. Is there even justice anymore at all? We have made so many mistakes and sentenced so many innocent people until it has become too far gone to where we have thrown out the rules and are just in a rush to point the finger as to ease the public eye temporarily. I agree that we should give up the death penalty, but without the proper tools to carry that law out and making sure people do not decide to take advantage of removing it, we have years ahead of us full of an error-filled judicial system.

Steal from the rich, give back to the poor

As of this week, the Senate Democrats are proposing an extended payroll cut that will probably be shot down by the Republicans. This payroll cut would impose a surtax on those who bring in $1 million or more as to reduce the heavy deficit we sit on right now. I'm all for it. While some may try to argue that extending the payroll cut will create a lack of job creation, that unfortunately isn't the main priority for the cut, nor should it appear so. The increase is meant to reduce the deficit.

As for our jobs issue, that's a different story and as a consumer, I feel that the payroll cut will not hinder job creation more than it is hindered within the current state of the economy. Did we see any job creation during the time we have been in a huge economic slump and we didn't impose a tax on the wealthy? I don't see what's going to change besides something for the better with an extended payroll cut. I'm a consumer and like every other consumer, I spend with whatever money I have, feeding the wealthy corporations money for what I demand from them. If this cut does not succeed, then there will be a lack of consumer spending and those wealthy corporations who were too selfish to pay a little out of their pocket will eventually see a decrease of business.

I say, onward with the extended payroll cut, preserve the current earnings of the lower and middle class and impose the tax on the rich. They can either sink with a refusal of the cut or swim with a little less in their pocket.

Rick Perry--just no.

After reading Annette's blog post on Rick Perry and the changes he wishes to seek if he were to become president, I feel sick to my stomach. Being a woman myself, I take offense to the requirements Perry feels the need to push on women. Annette outlines what currently is the issue and how Perry's "solutions" are "nothing short of insulting to women".

The issue with HPV and the Gardasil shot is most likely due to the poor sexual education provided in the school systems around the country. With the media and the younger of an exposed generation coming forth, sex is almost inevitable. Rather than trying to require a vaccine that a) costs $600 per person and b) does not even protect against ALL forms of HPV, we should probably hop off the whole abstinence bit and get real. Let's start talking about contraceptives and other forms of protection, having open discussion and making sure there is someone on campus who can personally answer questions that a student may feel uncomfortable discussing with their parents. Communication is the key if the message you're trying to get across is about being safe.

As for the Sonogram Bill, I couldn't agree more about Annette's stance on the idea. It's ridiculous. Getting an abortion can be due to many terrible reasons, whether it be a teenager getting raped, a woman who could lose her life without getting an abortion or a woman trying to spare raising a child with poor health implications that are incurable. No matter what the situation, abortion is a dreadful act that no woman looks forward to going through. If you had to go through with one because you were fifteen years old and ended up being raped, why should you be forced to look at something you couldn't even control? It's heart-breaking and abortions alone typically cause psychological illnesses among women, why add icing to the cake? Unless Rick Perry grows a vagina and goes through one himself and still has the same stance on the matter, I'd be surprised.

It may be more difficult for a man to understand the offense Perry's views on these matters are, but I feel like Annette spelled out the wrongs in his decisions to allow a reader of either gender to get the gist of how insulting Rick Perry is and why he is not suited to be president.

Relief to students, massacre for taxpayers

As much as I would love nothing more for college to be inexpensive and provide a wealthy education, I feel that Obama's Income Based Repayment plan isn't necessarily right. Being a college student myself with hopes of going to a well-rounded university, I am aware of the insane price it will cost me and most likely put me in debt by the thousands. However, there are already options for relief such as scholarships and grants that can be obtained as long as the student applies themselves and puts in the work. If you want to go to a prestigious school, keep in mind that prestigious schools are meant for those willing to work hard for it.

Just because we all aren't blessed with well-endowed parents willing to pay off our education in full does not mean that we should get a break. Spoiler alert: Life isn't fair. Some of us need to work harder, study a little more and apply for student loans. As taxpayers, the money that will be salvaged within this plan is OUR money. I, personally, do not feel this is fair to the people that worked hard, managed to suffice throughout college and pay off their student loans, just to end up paying for someone who may or may not abide by their legally binding contract with the government. There are other solutions other than the Income Based Repayment plan--for example, why don't we raise minimum wage to alleviate the income of most college students who work? What about raising the income tax on the rich? Private lending? I really hope that we consider other options before endangering the pockets of the public.

Wall Street Couldn't Have Done It Alone

Lately, I've been really caught up in the whole Occupy Wall Street extravaganza and I found this article fairly interesting compared to my thoughts on the matter. I stumbled upon a neat little piece written October 14th, 2011 by blogger Sheldon Richman, editor of The Freeman and author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State. who explains to the audience that while most of us are finally exercising our right to free speech and fighting back against Wall Street, they are not the only ones who deserve a lashing. Sheldon spells out everything clear as crystal, elaborating and providing key points as to how the "protesters’ wrath should also be directed at the national government and its central bank, the Federal Reserve System".

It is apparent that he is directing this piece towards an audience who is already aligning with protesters or someone who may be on the fence. Honestly, I admire what the people are saying and I can understand why, I just disagree with most of their demands. However, if I were considering to look into how to become a part of Occupy, I feel refreshed and well-prepared to go into a protest after reading Sheldon's blog.

His argument is clear, concise, straight to the point, and he does a very good job at convincing you that Wall Street couldn't have done it alone by stating it repeatedly. I also got chills when I read "Greed without political power is boorish. Greed with political power is dangerous."

Kudos to you, Sheldon. I believe that those who are currently in the midst of protesting would have a better sense on what they're arguing against if they read this piece.

The American Dream? Pfft.

I had the pleasure of reading an opinion article published on September 27th by Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of The Nation magazine.(sarcasm) In her article, she expresses her idea that what America needs in order to salvage and recover from our current recession is "a movement to reclaim the American Dream".

I feel as though her efforts to invoke some sort of spirit to rally together against the government only make her look like a naive socialist. She doesn't use any effective evidence to support her argument that this is the solution to our economic problem. I respect the author for trying to inspire the audience, but in reality, a progressive movement led by Obama was what brought us to our current state. She fails to mention that we have a gazillion defecits coming from Obama, yet 1 out of 6 of us are drowning in poverty and it was "done to them". Her blame on the extremely rich for our poor economy comes off as immature.

The modern day American Dream isn't just about staying afloat; it's about buying things we think we need, despite whether we can afford it or not. We've handed out enough money and not enough encouragement to simply work hard and spend wisely. As ideal as it may sound that everyone gets a fair wage and a nice home and so forth, the reality is that this will never happen. Katrina lives in a progressive dream world and not trying to be brash or anything, but she needs to wake up.

2011: Year of the Penny Pinchers

According to an article I found on Time.com, the Census Bureau reports that one in six Americans now live in poverty. While a "supercommittee" is currently trying to decide how to handle where our cut from the federal budget should be, the portion responsible for covering child needs is looking to get smaller. A program called Building Futures in Washington was created to "promote "middle-skill" jobs that don't necessarily require a college degree." This program offers $10 a day per person to cover transportation and food along with teaching the attendees particular courses in order to get those better prepared and capable of landing a job, which would boost consumer spending and strengthen our economy.

I suggest you all read this because I find it almost appalling that even though we claim that 'children are our future', we have no problem firing mentors, making insane budget cuts in our schools, and now we're going to jeopardize the health and well-being of what could be the one finding a cure to a disease you have one day. There has to be another solution to all of this. Check out this jibberish here: Census Data Show Poverty’s Creep, Lasting Effects of Recession