RSS

2nd Period

Please post your entry on this page.

Advertisements
 

130 responses to “2nd Period

  1. Mrs. Biello

    March 16, 2011 at 2:32 pm

    Social Security Reform

    When you retire, there will not be any money left in the Social Security system. What do you think we need to do to reform this system, or should we do away with it all together? Use findings from your research to support your argument. Keep in mind the large numbers of people who would be affected by a decision either way, and how do they factor into your stance on the issue?

     
    • Brandon Mitcheltree

      March 18, 2011 at 2:05 pm

      Instead of OUR taxes going to the retirees, they should go towards OUR retirement fund. It makes more sense than to have our money placed on another’s retirement, unless it is by choice. Everybody’s got to have choices, right?

       
      • Mrs. Biello

        March 22, 2011 at 1:34 pm

        Brandon you need some facts to back up your argument. Please cite your sources to give your argument more validity.

         
      • Brandon Mitcheltree

        March 22, 2011 at 1:41 pm

        Social security seems to be more about securing others than yourself. There’s the fact that the program has a possibility of running out of money in the near future because of the cost to take care of those that have retired. Each year the number of retirees seems to increase, which makes the problems worsen and the fact that this could possibly lead to a serious funding crisis. What are future generations going to do? Are they going to give up on Social Security or change it?

         
    • Adam Williams

      March 21, 2011 at 9:56 pm

      I think we should lessen the amount of money given to the retirees so that we can put a little to the side for future generations. The large amount of people who are on social security would suffer from minor decrease in the money they would receive but hopefully most of those people know how to manage their money

       
      • Mrs. Biello

        March 22, 2011 at 1:36 pm

        What would happen to al lthe retirees who would loose their homes if we lessen their retirement in come? You need to cite some more research to back up your claims. Right now they have no basis other than your own thoughts and opinions which will not win a debate without a little back up.

         
      • Adam Williams

        March 22, 2011 at 2:15 pm

        http://blogs.forbes.com/peterferrara/2011/03/17/a-winning-plan-for-social-security-reform/

        If we dont cut our social security system soon the payroll tax will jump 14.7% and cut out a great amount of money from the american people. For some of these people that cut will be devistating. If we just cut the social security benefit when it runs out and hope the american people dont get mad when we tax there paychecks so much more than it use to be

         
    • Madison Rich

      March 22, 2011 at 12:44 pm

      There isn’t much that can be done NOW. The government should have seen the larger generation coming of retirment age and planned for it. instead then stood and did nothing. I cant see taking their social security away but at the same time I don’t want to be left out in the rain when I get that old and need assistance.

       
      • Mrs. Biello

        March 22, 2011 at 1:37 pm

        Madison, you need to provide some suggestions for a solution based on your research. It is a total cop out to say nothing can be done. Look it up, there are many options out there.

         
      • Madison Rich

        March 22, 2011 at 1:43 pm

        If you take away their aid tho some of them could actually DIE. They wouldnt be able to get the medicine or treatment they need. The only way to keep that from happening is to let them have the social security. But by doing that you take away ours. So to keep that from happening we need to start a second fund for ourselves. A fund that the governement cant allocate to other projects.

         
    • Nick Waver

      March 22, 2011 at 12:50 pm

      I believe that we the people should save our own money for retirement, why should I pay for someone else’s retirement when I should be saving for my own. If the person didn’t save enough for his/her retirement than that is their own fault.

       
    • Nick Waver

      March 22, 2011 at 1:37 pm

      I believe that we the people should save our own money for retirement, why should I pay for someone else’s retirement when I should be saving for my own. The economy is not doing very well right now and every penny that I save for my future counts. If the person didn’t save enough for his/her retirement than that is their own fault.

       
      • Mrs. Biello

        March 22, 2011 at 1:39 pm

        Well Nick, they may not have saved because the government told them not to worry about it since they would be getting social security. How do we move forward from this point where we know it is going to run out of money? Find some solutions, do some research!!!

         
      • Nick Waver

        March 22, 2011 at 1:51 pm

        We could partially privatize the system, allowing workers to retain control over some of the contributions to their retirement fund and to decide how to invest them. Even though this way is more risky, individual investing is more profitable.

         
    • Richard Richardson

      March 22, 2011 at 1:50 pm

      Before we make decisions on whether or not Social Security should still exist, we need to see if there is any way that the program can be changed. It is indeed true that “it gives poor peopel a better chance to retire wealthy” (www.balancedpolitics.org), but yet it also promises a payout that the system simply just can’t afford to pay. My proposal is that we cunduct a census every three to four years to discover how many people of America’s population are seniors, and then adjust taxes in a way so that every senior gets the same amount of money.

       
    • Jessica

      March 22, 2011 at 2:23 pm

      Social Security has been very helpful to past generations, but is well known that there is simply not enough money is there to keep it going. I found it interesting that there is a cap on who has to pay taxes on social security and who doesn’t. Some think a solution to increasing the money supply would be to lifted, which would mean everyone would have to pay some taxes for social security. ( John Miller) I think this could be a possible solution but many wealthy people that don’t have to pay taxes now would be very angry if they had to start paying taxes. Other solutions that could be used to reform this system could be by: raising the age to get benefits, encourage people to work later in life before retiring, and maybe even increasing taxes for social security. ( Chuck Hagel) I think all of this possibilties could possibly help the situation but I also think that poeple should take their own responsibility in saving up more money for themselves for retirement than solely relying on government money for retirement. ( Miller). Most people misunderstand the social security system to begin with . They think that the taxes that they pay as an individual go in a savings that go directly back to thhem but indeed this is not true. The money you pay in a social security tax is put in a big bunch of money that is uised to fund the people that are retiring in the present day. This misunderstanding could be a reason why social security is becoming a problem. Everyone thinks that the system is risk free, but in reality it is definitley not ( Alex Epstein). Overall, I think that the social security system should stay in place but the measures that were mentioned above should be taken along with people personally saving up money for themselves that would be used when they themself retire.

       
    • Erin Eitenmiller

      March 22, 2011 at 2:26 pm

      Social Security should be privatized. If SS is going to be privatized, it needs to be done soon. It needs to be done now because we are in a time when we can afford it, unlike in thirty years when where is no money left (Marron). Keeping SS creates a vast moral hazard (Glassman and Cowen). SS encourages people to spend their money instead of saving it for their futures and retirement (Glassman and Cowen). SS also encourages people to not save their money for their family’s needs. If the United States were to privatize SS now, it would not be completely dead. Not completely doing away with SS would give people working now the choice to save/invest their money or continue to give it to SS (Shipman and Ferrara). SS needs to be privatized to help out the country of the US and the well being of the US citizens.

       
    • hunter lecroy

      May 9, 2011 at 12:14 am

      this is truely a problem jsut waiting to happen. people are just waiting to get there ss instead of saving for them selves which wouldn’t be an issue if we had the money to continue providing this. We should simply install a age limit of if you are 60 and up you’ll still get it and the others must start saving or if they end up in a bind the could aply for temperay assistance until they cant slow work it out entirly and install a new more stable system to replace it.

       
  2. Mrs. Biello

    March 16, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    Gun Control

    This national debate has gone on since the inception of this great Nation. Your right to bear arms is brought into questions almost every legislative session. Do you believe in the right to bear arms, or do you belive this right should be restricted? Use examples and findings from your research to support your argument.

     
    • Adam Williams

      March 21, 2011 at 8:59 pm

      Gun control is the most meaningless issue right now. Yes I am of age to go buy a gun at any dealer I want because I am an American citizen. If that right was restricted i would move out of the country. Why live in a country where you can’t protect your own home front. The White House invited the NRA to a private meeting but even the vice president of the company said that it was pointless to even try because they were not going to sit down with people who have been fighting the second amendment their entire lives. YES a THOROUGH back ground check should be allowed to pass but limiting the American people should not be allowed. We have every god given right to own a gun. The people that choose to make mistakes with their gun is on them and should be punished but you cant punish the others that had nothing to do with that person.

       
    • Kase Saunders

      March 22, 2011 at 1:05 pm

      Gun Control should not even be an issue today. The Second Admendment gives any U.S. citizen of age the right to own a gun. “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” Therefore, it would be unconstitutional for the U.S. to take away our guns through gun control.

       
    • Madison Rich

      March 22, 2011 at 1:09 pm

      Gun Control can be a very good idea when you go about it the right way. Simply saying “give me your weapons, you’re never going to get them back” is not an effective way to get the people to cooperate. If you say give us your fully automatic weapons that would be more than reasonable. There is no need for the average civilian to have one. You cant exactly go hunting with one because you wouldn’t bring anything back. So why have it?
      http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Reference&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=GALE%7C00000000LVWY&documentId=GALE%7CPC3021900077&mode=view

       
      • Mrs. Biello

        March 22, 2011 at 1:33 pm

        Why is it unreasonable for citizens to have fully automatic weapons? Maybe they are collectors. Why should the government be able to tell you what you can and can’t own?

         
    • Travis Hagler

      March 22, 2011 at 1:17 pm

      I beleive that gun control should be eliminated. It is true that students are bringing violence into the school, but they weill still bring it into the school whether it is allowed or not. On the other hand it is also true that every individual should have the right to protect themselves from harms way if it came down to it. They say it will just cause more violence by letting people carry the gun but if it is dissasembled or if it has a gun lock on it, then it is completely safe. In conclusion i want my right to bear arms.

       
      • Mrs. Biello

        March 22, 2011 at 1:43 pm

        Travis, can you cite specific examples of where allowing people to own guns actually makes people more safe? Please cite your references.

         
    • Hunter Tuck

      March 22, 2011 at 1:57 pm

      I believe the right to bear arms is a completely necessary, important right of the american people. It is the right that provides security and protection for citizens acrossed the country. “Guns are not the problem, people are,” (Burnett 4) A gun is a terrible thing in the wrongs hands, yes, but it should not be denied from other people. How about we tighten the gun regulations on criminals and convicted felons, rather than everyday Americans. Besides, there are already more than enough ruglations for us non criminals. “all registered handguns possessed by its civilian residents remain unloaded and either disassembled or fitted with a trigger lock.” (Viera 12). In today’s raging economy, gun control issues are the least of our worries.

       
    • Richard Richardson

      March 25, 2011 at 2:29 pm

      Though the issue of gun control has plagued our nation for years with no resolve, it is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed. Gun control laws should, in my opinion, NOT be enforced. Though this allows potential criminals access to guns, it encourages citizens to be equipped with the means of protecting themselves. There are some studies that show that the chance of being the victim of a violent crime actually decreases as the availability of guns increases (Gale Opposing Viewpoints). As a side note, even if guns are banned from citizens, it will not stop a criminal from finding a way to illegally obtain a gun. In this manner, citizens have no means for self defence if they are attacked (Gale Opposing Viewpoints).

       
    • hunter lecroy

      May 9, 2011 at 12:54 am

      ever american has the right to bare arms. i believe that should still stand for many purposes. for starters they help with safty as well as make for good hobbies. the way i see it the more people that have gu ns the less crime will surface cause no one wantr to rob the person with the gun. i see this lowering crime sugnificantly not increaseing it. we should keep this right for our safty.

       
  3. Mrs. Biello

    March 16, 2011 at 5:29 pm

    Tax Reform

    Taxes are at the very heart of American political debate. They affect everyone from the people and businesses who pay them to the others who receive some of the benefits. The IRS is very complex and costs a lot of money to run. Do you belive that tax reform is an important issue? Why or why not? If we change the system, should we try to modify it or scrap the current system and replace it with something completely new and innovative? Use your references to back up your thoughts.

     
    • Brandon Mitcheltree

      March 21, 2011 at 1:15 pm

      I believe that tax reform is an important issue because it decides what taxes we should pay, such as flat tax, for example. The current system is alright for todays Americans, but it could be doing a lot better. Nearly half of America doesnt pay for taxes, especially in the West. Many have considered moving to a flat tax, but this would only provide more problems, especially on those that have an exceptionally low income.

       
      • Mrs. Biello

        March 22, 2011 at 1:45 pm

        What sources say a flat tax would be a burden on those with low incomes? If you are going to state that as fact, you need to back it up. I think a flat tax would be less burdensome on everyone. But if I don’t provide you some research, it doesn’t really matter what I say!

         
      • Brandon Mitcheltree

        March 22, 2011 at 1:55 pm

        It all depends. is it personal opinion or cold facts? according to the media, it is facts, but most people could argue against that, especially those who can’t afford to pay the same amount of taxes others pay. the government would have to set a tax that can conform to their way of living, but that would leave more money for those who have more green in their pockets, which would be unfair to those who don’t really have much money at all.

        http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SSCHEH-0-3361&artno=0000247872&type=ART

         
    • Savannah Short

      March 22, 2011 at 1:44 pm

      The U.S. is slowly moving toward a flat-tax system. While some people may be voicing their opinions on this topic, most of America remains uninformed about the subject. As a nation, we need to become educated on what this tax means. With a flat tax, the middle class will pour nearly as large a share of its income into tax coffers as millionaires do. Personally, I find this unfair and I stand against our nation using a flat-tax system. (US Moves- Quietly- Toward a Flat Tax).

       
      • Mrs. Biello

        March 22, 2011 at 1:47 pm

        Savannah, why should I pay more or less of a percentage than the next person? A flat tax is “fair” in that everyone pays the same percent of their income. So, millionaires would be paying a higher dollar amount than middle income people. Sounds fair to me. Explain more why you think it is “unfair” and who told you life was fair???

         
    • Erin Eitenmiller

      March 23, 2011 at 2:23 am

      The United States should put in some sort of tax reform in the near future. As of today, 47 percent of American’s are not paying their income tax (Sherman). This 47 percent of American citizens might think they are avoiding paying taxes but there is no way to avoid paying taxes to the United States government (Sherman). If you wanted to avoid taxes completely, you could not drink, smoke, drive a car, or live in a house. The flat tax rate would take away all of these random taxes, and everyone would just have one simple tax to pay. If the flat tax rate were put into place, it would add ten billion extra dollars to the national treasury (Weintraub). Another plus to the flat tax rate is that it is very simple to where about every American citizen would be able to understand it (Wong). American needs to adopt the flat tax.

       
    • Phillip Powell

      March 25, 2011 at 1:54 pm

      I feel that this is a very important issue because the government is bringing in less money than it is spending, and as a concequence it is having to spend bond money and print money to compensate. We will face a very severe inflation crisis if we continue down the road we are going. This is why the governemt is suggesting that we increase taxes while decreasing spending to compensate, which sounds like a good idea until you realize that they intend to cut chunks of funding out of EVERYTHING. Here are the numbers for our tax hike:
      – The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
      – The 25% bracket rises to 28%
      – The 28% bracket rises to 31%
      – The 33% bracket rises to 36%
      – The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%
      Read more: http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171##ixzz1HXx9dAPE
      Those numbers translate into a 3% increase in tax for the middle class, and a 5% for the lowest and highest classes. However this simply does not make sense. Why should the lowest class (which has the lowest amount of non-necessity spending out of any group) be given a 50% increase in its tax rate? Why should the rich, who create businesses and create jobs, be taxed more? Such taxation discourages spending from the upper class, and as a result the nation loses potential jobs.

      So what is the best solution? It seems to me that we should scrap our current system of taxation and employ the “Fair Tax” law. This law would completely dispose of the income tax, and instead tax goods more. Now you may ask, “If the tax just swaps over to goods, then what’s the point?” Well the answer is that the people would be able to take the money that would normally not be spent because of the income tax, and put it in savings. The money would gain value over time,and then the consumer could spend the money on goods and services. Therefore the end result is a government that makes the same amount of money as before, and a people that has more money than before. It’s also a fact that when people have money, they spend it (especially in American society). By giving the public more money to spend (via not taking it out of their paychecks), you entice them to buy more things and therefore stimulate the economy. The government would also disband the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) upon adopting the law, and save the money it would normally spend on the IRS.

      http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171#

      http://hubpages.com/hub/FairTax-Act

       
    • Lindsay Peterson

      March 27, 2011 at 9:35 pm

      Though tax reform does have its benefits, I don’t agree with Obama’s proposition for tax reform which includes proportioning taxes where the more income you have the more taxes you have to pay, eliminating or reducing deductions and credits, and reducing corporate income to 26%. According to Dan Mitchell, Obama’s plan could cause “class warefare” saying that this may cause tension between classes because not everyone is paying the same amount. Also, he says that elimination or reducing tax distortions would lead to higher government spending which would then lead to higher taxes. Therefore, it could defeat the original intention of the plan which is to lessen the burden of taxpayers across America.

       
  4. Mrs. Biello

    March 16, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    Nuclear Power.

    With all of the stuff going on in Japan as a result of the earthquake and ensuing tsunami last week, many nations are considering shutting down their nuclear reactors for fear of a chain reaction like what has developed in Japan. The harmful effects of radiation exposure are causing people around the globe to fear the long-term health impact that this type of eruption can cause. What steps do you think nations should take to shut down, continue, or modify use of nuclear reactors as a source of power? Use your research to support your arguments.

     
    • Brandon Mitcheltree

      March 18, 2011 at 2:10 pm

      We shouldn’t use nuclear power because of the threat it imposes on the health of those who either work there or live near. Think about Chemobyl. A nuclear reactor malfunctioning like that all around the world could cause a world wide problem. We have alternative resources; we should use those. And, about the reactors, we should close them down and find a way to safely dispose of the remaining waste, not in some landfill or buried under the ground. It could come back to haunt future generations.

       
    • Adam Williams

      March 21, 2011 at 10:00 pm

      Nuclear power should not be used even if it provides a great amount of energy. The environment and its inhabitants can and would most likely suffer from the harmful effects of the radiation. We can and have found more effective ways to produce energy at low cost. Its just a matter of switching over to those alternative resources .

       
      • Mrs. Biello

        March 22, 2011 at 1:52 pm

        Adam, please cite studies where alternative energy sources have been proven more effective than nuclear energy. Also, cite your sources when claiming that nuclear energy “would” harm people and the environment.

         
    • Nick Waver

      March 22, 2011 at 12:57 pm

      Nuclear power is a great, and one of the best, alternative energy sources we have on Earth. Nuclear plants cost less to operate than fossil-fuel plants because they can produce large amounts of energy with very little fuel. Nuclear power production releases no pollutants into the air. However, a coal-burning power plant releases 5,000 tons of ash into the environment every year.

       
      • Mrs. Biello

        March 22, 2011 at 1:54 pm

        Nick, please cite the sources on your above statistics. Also, please explain in more detail your argument as to whether or not we should continue to use nuclear power.

         
      • Phillip Powell

        March 22, 2011 at 2:01 pm

        Actually, nuclear reactors are much more expensive in the long run due to the cost of constructing the plant, disposing nuclear fuel, and disposing expired reactors.

        There’s also the fact that nuclear reactors rely on coal plants to refine their uranium and vehicles with combustion engines to transport the fuel, so to say nuclear reactors are completely “CO2 free” is incorrect.

         
      • Phillip Powell

        March 22, 2011 at 2:03 pm

        You also have to consider that a nuclear reactor CAN produce polution in the form of radiation should some accident or plot cause it to, as is the case with the damaged reactors in Japan.

         
      • Nick Waver

        March 22, 2011 at 2:06 pm

        I know there are risks into using nuclear power, but problems like Chernobyl, and more recently, Japan are extremely rare. How many oil spills have we had over the generations? Another think I’d like to add is the issue of a power plant “blowing up”. Nuclear reactors cannot explode like a bomb because the uranium fuel that it uses is not concentrated enough. “Nuclear Energy.” Current Issues: Macmillian Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 22 Mar. 2011.

         
      • Phillip Powell

        March 22, 2011 at 2:19 pm

        The problem with your statement is that just because something is “rare” doesn’t mean it can’t happen. In fact, it HAS happened, and the odds are it will happen again because the odds are it can happen again.

        The way nuclear reactors “explode” isn’t via the fuel exploding, but the uranium can melt through the reactor and become exposed. There’s also a chance that the split hydrogen and oxygen (which is split by the heat of the reactor) can cause an explosion that sends radioactive material into the atmosphere.

        When you consider those facts and the fact that oil spills are a lot easier to clean than radioactivity (because you CAN’T clean radiaton), then the last piece clicks in place.

         
      • Nick Waver

        March 22, 2011 at 2:19 pm

        So you are saying you want to keep relying on foreign oil? You do realize that if one of the Middle East countries were to stop selling us oil, it would cripple our nation. Fossil fuels have way more risks than nuclear power. There have been only a handful of disasters from nuclear plants but more than our fair share of disasters from fossil fuels. Also, A typical nuclear reactor uses about 200 tons of uranium fuel annually. To generate the same amount of energy, a coal-fired power plant would require 3 million tons of coal.

         
      • Phillip Powell

        March 22, 2011 at 2:20 pm

        Read my post on this topic, as it is one of the ones I have done.

         
      • Nick Waver

        March 22, 2011 at 2:27 pm

        You are talking about chances; chances are a car can explode from the fuel inside it. Chances are more disasters like the one in the gulf can and will happen. Playing the chance game isn’t really a good argument to be had.

        Also, what will we do when there is no sun to power the panels? A battery is expensive, heavy and has acid in it. Solar panels are not cheap; and because they are constructed from fragile materials (semiconductors, glass, etc.), they must constantly be maintened and often replaced. Which means more money

         
      • Phillip Powell

        March 22, 2011 at 2:29 pm

        No, I’m saying there are better sources of “clean” energy. The government should take the money it uses to subsidize nuclear energy and put it toward research and production of Solar Sattelites. The cells on sattelites are much more efficient than the ones on earth because solar energy is not lost in the atmosphere, and such sattelites can turn the electicity into microwaves that are sent to the planet’s surface. These microwaves hit a special converter that turns the waves back into electricity. Since the sattelite is in geostationary orbit, it always has access to the sun’s energy.

         
      • Nick Waver

        March 22, 2011 at 2:31 pm

        Like you said, chances are that a meter can strike it; a foreign nation can shoot it down with a missile. What about the cost to get it into space. The ones on Earth cost a lot of money as it is.

         
      • Phillip Powell

        March 23, 2011 at 6:18 pm

        A foreign missile could also hit a nuclear reactor, and that would be a much bigger problem than having a missile hit a satellite. There’s also the fact that the satellite could be equipped with anti-ballistic systems to shoot down such missiles. Meteors can also be deflected with those same systems, and anything too big can be dodged.
        The cost of contracting and launching such satellites would be high, but the cost of constructing a nuclear plant is also high, and you have to factor in the cost of disposing of the depleted fuel. Another thing that makes the solar cells expensive is that current facilities lack the equipment and technology to mass produce cheaper versions of the cells does not exist, due to lack of funding. The good thing is that such satellites do not necessarily need solar cells to operate. You can also use mirrors to focus the light onto a huge container of water that is hooked up to a steam turbine. The sun’s energy would almost instantly vaporize the water in the container and produce very large amounts of steam to turn the turbine and power the generator.

         
    • Savannah Short

      March 22, 2011 at 1:13 pm

      Many people believe that nuclear energy will end our dependence on fossil fuels and help us to become “greener”. However, many people do not understand how costly and dangerous nuclear energy is. It takes over two billion dollars to build one plant; also, nuclear power plants can become unstable and dangerous very easily. We have to understand that nuclear energy, while seeming extremely beneficial, is not the “silver bullet” for solving our world’s environmental issues.

       
      • Mrs. Biello

        March 22, 2011 at 1:56 pm

        Savannah, why is it not the “silver bullet?” Please cite your sources on the instability and dangers of nuclear power plants. Also, even though initial costs are high, can they actually save money over time? You need an alternative if you are going to state that we should not use nuclear energy. What is better and why?

         
      • Savannah Short

        March 22, 2011 at 2:02 pm

        My source was “Reasons Not to Expand Nuclear Power” and “The Demand for Energy”. As for other sources for energy, I beleive we are still searching for the cleanest, most practical way to create energy. As of right now, we should promote wind and solar energy; they both are less costly and less dangerous than nuclear power (The Demand for Energy).

         
    • Kase Saunders

      March 22, 2011 at 1:23 pm

      Even though nuclear power is a great alternatiive energy source, the radiation and possibility of overheating proves to be a huge threat to the people working the plants and the people who live around it. There are other ways to create energy; in my opinion we should put the money that is now put into nuclear power into research to find other energy sources that don’t hurt the environment or people. There are other ways to produce energy at lower costs, it’s just a matter of finding them.

       
      • Mrs. Biello

        March 22, 2011 at 1:58 pm

        Kase, what are those other ways, and how do we know they are safer and more efficient? Also, what do we do in the meantime? You need to use your research to back up your argument. There is no support for the opnions you provided above.

         
      • Kase Saunders

        March 22, 2011 at 2:16 pm

        Scientists today are working on a way to make coal “clean”; if they end up figuring it out, clean coal could revolutionize energy. Hydroelectric, solar, geothermal, and wind power are all also good… although they are not as good as nuclear power, but they are still clean and safe.

        http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/topic/actionWin?limiter=&displayGroups=&query=&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=GALE%7C00000000LVY0&scanId=&display-query=&mode=view&userGroupName=cant48040&jsid=c207463d30cb1c528b553095d7b254b1
        http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100107203437AALnhNt

         
      • Phillip Powell

        March 23, 2011 at 6:26 pm

        There are more efficient coal plants being developed, and there are plans to create “zero emission” plants that trap the carbon and store the materials used to trap it inside of depleted oil wells. Natural gas and oil plants are also making plans to do the same.

        There’s also the fact that the green energy sources you have listed are very expensive to create plants for, and the production of green energy as it is cannot keep up with the annual energy usage increase. Sure, the production could eventually surpass the increase in energy usage and slowly replace fossil fuels as the most viable energy cost, but our nation simply cannot afford the bill to do so. Our best option is to further research into green technology and energy efficiency in hope that cheaper versions our current methods to capture those green energies will appear and that we can decrease the rate at which our energy demands increase.

         
    • Phillip Powell

      March 22, 2011 at 1:28 pm

      Nuclear Energy:

      I think areas with significant risk of earthquakes should stop using nuclear power due to the risk of a nuclear disaster as a result of a powerful earthquake. While they help keep countries secure by reducing dependence on fossile fuel, they do run the risk of releasing enough radiaton to poision a continent. There’s also the chance that some of the fuel could end up in the wrong hands and be used for a nuclear weapon. Nations such as the US should fund production and research of solar sattelites instead of nuclear energy because nuclear energy already costs more than solar, and solar sattelites are much more efficient than land based ones while taking up no land space (except for teh microwave converters on the planet’s surface).

       
      • Phillip Powell

        March 22, 2011 at 1:48 pm

        Lovins, Amory B., and L. Hunter Lovins. “Nuclear Power Is Inefficient and Dangergous.” What Energy Sources Should Be Pursued? Ed. Stuart A. Kallen. Farmington Hills: Greehaven Press, 2005. 46-49. Print. At Issue.

        Nuclear Energy Institute. “Nuclear Power Is Efficient and Safe for the Environment.” What Energy Sources Should Be Pursued? Ed. Stuart A. Kallen. Farmington Hills: Greehaven Press, 2005. 40-45. Print. At Issue.

         
    • Jessica

      March 22, 2011 at 1:51 pm

      The use of nuclear power for energy should be left for the last resort. There are many other alternative fuels and ways to create energy that are much less harmful then radiation that would be created from nuclear power. some examples are being used today but should be continued t be used and used more as time goes by to decrease dependency on use of fossil fuels or oil. ( Unconcerned Scientists) The Use of Nuclear power should not be used until saftey measures have been taken that would signifigantly decrease radiation or bring it to safer levels ( energy alternatives.) If alternatives were used such as solar energy, wind energy, or hydroelectric power, or electricity were used and used much more widley than today, it would decrease our dependency on oil and dirty fuels. Therefore, Nuclear energy should bu kept for the last resort alternative due to the danger that radiation could cause.

       
      • Mrs. Biello

        March 22, 2011 at 2:01 pm

        Jess, what are the safety measure that could be taken to make nuclear power less dangerous? If you are offering that as a solution, you shoudl explain it in more depth.

         
    • Breanna Cornett

      March 22, 2011 at 2:23 pm

      Is nuclear power really the best alternative to resort to? The use of carbon energy is greatly affecting the enviroment by all the CO2 produced. In the article “Nuclear power is safe, sound…and green,” they say if a 1 gigawatt coal plant burns 3 million tons of fuel a year and produces 7 million tons of CO2 what is that doing to the enviroment? I agree along with it destroying the enviroment, it is also endangering the lives of the miners that accumulate the coal to be burned. There has been many fatalities occuring in the coal mines. The government needs to keep the saftey of the people in mind and if that requires a little more expensive, then so be it.

       
      • Phillip Powell

        March 23, 2011 at 6:32 pm

        The problem here is that the means by which we capture green energy have VERY expensive up-front costs. The government simply cannot afford to replace our current “dirty” sources of energy with “clean” energy. It’s one thing to say “just pay for it.”; it’s another thing to decide how and who going to pay for it.

         
    • Casie

      March 25, 2011 at 3:04 am

      Nuclear energy has the least amount of waste product of any major energy production, uses uranium (this source material is abundant), will sway us away from the costs that are competitive with coal (the major source used in the world), and it is green for our planet. An earthquake, a natural disaster, caused the nuclear power plant troubles. But Japan also put the nuclear power plant on one of the world’s most seismically unstable land masses. Nuclear power plants are safe and not harmful like everyone seems to believe. Nations need to add more nuclear power plants in the world and eventually shift completely to nuclear energy and other renewable and safe energy sources.
      http://www.npr.org/2011/03/24/134817857/new-republic-the-meltdown-that-japan-really-fears
      http://members.tripod.com/funk_phenomenon/nuclear/procon.htm

       
  5. Mrs. Biello

    March 16, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    Libya

    With the civil unrest going on in Libya right now, many people in the US and around the world are pondering the next step. Some are watching for organizations such as the UN and Red Cross to get involved and provide relief, while others are looking to stronger, more powerful nations to step in and provide long-term support by enabling stability. Based on your research, do you belive that the United States should get involved in this international crisis? Support your opinions with sources from your research.

     
    • Nick Waver

      March 22, 2011 at 1:11 pm

      If the U.S. can make Libya better by NOT sending ground troops into Libya, I am all for helping the rebels. I would rather launch cruise missiles at Libyan targets to help insure the no-fly zone, than to send our men and women into battle there. Just look at the price of oil; as the problems in Libya continued, the price of oil skyrocketed. If we can settle the issues there, namely getting Muammar Qadhafi out of power, we will be doing the world a favor.

       
    • Paige Sexton

      March 22, 2011 at 1:55 pm

      In my opinion, the U.S. should not intervene in Libya. This intervention has not end goal. Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana claims ” the plan is simply not there; the objectives, the end game, is not apparent.” It is also too complicated and too risky. Libya is not a crucial point for U.S. policy, either for oil or regional stability. (Should the U.S. Intervene in Libya?) Not only does it not concern us but it is alos very costly as well. Running a no-fly zone is extremely expensive and will most likely result in war.

       
      • Paige Sexton

        March 22, 2011 at 2:12 pm

        Libya is not a concern to us due to the fact that the U.S. has multiple political and economic problems of our own to solve. For example, Health Care is a major topic of debate that is causing many protests and unrest. If we cannot help ourselves then how can we help others?

         
  6. Mrs. Biello

    March 16, 2011 at 6:05 pm

    Abortion

    Most people’s minds will not be changed when it comes to this long-standing debate. But the discussion is out there, and it is an important one. When does life begin? Who has the right to take a life? Who should be punished? How do you decide the answer to all of these questions? Use your research to present an argument about the rights of the woman to choose or the rights of the child to live. you must support your argument with sources from your research, and you MUST pick a side.

     
    • Kase Saunders

      March 22, 2011 at 12:48 pm

      Abortion is a decision that should be decided by the potential mother. Whether or not her parents agree, she should have the ultimate decision. Yes, having an abortion means taking someones life. But if the girl is not financially and physically ready to be a parent the babies life will not be that great.

       
    • Madison Rich

      March 22, 2011 at 1:24 pm

      Abortion should always the last posible option. Its not the childs fault that you were irresponsible. Whether or not you can support that child or give it a good life yourself is irrevilant. You can always give it to someone who can and will give it a good life. That doesn’t mean that you turn it over to a foster home so it can live like Annie. There are couples everywhere that cant have children themselves and would love to have a child. Especially a new born. And if you don’t think you could give your baby away and never see it again you can have an open adoption. With an open adoption you can have visitation with your child and be an active part of it’s life as he or she grow up. Unless there is an extreme circumstance, like rape or insest, abortioin should not be an option. There are other options available and for a mother to kill her child rather than sucking it up and dealing with the consequences of her actions and of the fathers actions is just selfish.

       
      • Madison Rich

        March 22, 2011 at 2:10 pm

        Abortion should always the last posible option. Its not the childs fault that you were irresponsible. Whether or not you can support that child or give it a good life yourself is irrevilant. You can always give it to someone who can and will give it a good life. That doesn’t mean that you turn it over to a foster home so it can live like Annie. There are couples everywhere that cant have children themselves and would love to have a child. Especially a new born. And if you don’t think you could give your baby away and never see it again you can have an open adoption. With an open adoption you can have visitation with your child and be an active part of it’s life as he or she grows up. Unless there is an extreme circumstance like rape or insest abortioin should not be an option. There are other options available so for a mother to kill her child rather than sucking it up and dealing with the consequences of her actions and of the fathers actions it is just selfish.

         
    • Jacqueline

      March 22, 2011 at 1:51 pm

      “For you created my inmost being;
      you knit me together in my mother’s womb…Your eyes saw my unformed body;
      all the days ordained for me were written in your book
      before one of them came to be.” Psalm 139:13;16. Based on my beliefs, i am pro-life. I believe that the bible is God’s truth to us and if it says he created us and has planned out all of our days from the time we were in our mother’s womb, we should not be killing the unborn for our own selfish reasons. I take this issue from a strong religious standpoint because that is the way I believe and it means the most to me. I can understand that women may be concerned with “prenatal diagnosis of disease or disability” (“Topic overview: Abortion”; SIRS Researcher), but is it their choice to decide how the baby is being made? There is not even evidence that it is 100% certain they will be born with those defects. It just takes faith to believe that God is the one in control and he has a plan for that baby’s life and will provide all your needs through any struggle you may face concerning the birth, the baby or mother’s health, etc. I guess it all depends on where you stand and how you view things religiously or through faith. But based on what I believe and know, I have decided that abortion is us as humans getting in God’s way, thinking that we know best, when he is actually El Ohim (God the Creator) and can see the big picture and is the one in control or all.

       
    • Jessica

      March 22, 2011 at 2:06 pm

      Abortion is a very touchy subject for most people but it happens everyday. Personally I think it should be banned especially after reading the harsh ways abortions occur. (Meredith Hunt) Technically life begins when fertilization occurs; This statement would make abortion somewhat like murder. If a child is created the parent should suffer the consequences of their choices. The mother should atleast go through with the pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption if they are in a situation that they can definitly not provide for the baby. Some think that abortion is like genocide ( Hunt). Abortion definitly has charactoristics of genocide but can’t legally be called that because pre-born children aren’t a specific group of people. ( Hunt) Some people think, and I agree, that there is no difference when a fetus is killed in the uterus or out. ( Richard Posner). Activists are making great efforts to make abortion less necessary which they believe is a much better approach rather than making it illegal all together. They are doing this by raising prices and decreasing the number of doctors that are able to abort children. Activists are doing this rather than trying to make it illegal all together because they think that if it were illegal women would find ways of aborting children that are much more inhumane and dangerous than what doctors are doiong now. ( Abortion Contoversy) Overall, These activists have the right idea by trying to decrease the number of abortions first before they try to make it illegal; But abortions are very disturbing and no one should be killed in these ways such as ” being born alive, feet first, the stuck with sissors at the base of the skull, then a tube is inserted and the brains are vaccumed out.” (Susan E, Wills) After reading this statement everyone should be against Abortion.

       
    • Jacqueline

      March 22, 2011 at 2:07 pm

      In response to your questions,
      1) I believe life begins at conception
      2) No one has the right to take a life
      3) “Who should be punished?” Punished for what exactly?
      4) I decide how to answer all of these questions based on what I understand by my spiritual belief.
      If necessary, let me know if these answers are too vague, and how.

       
    • Jacob Haverland

      March 22, 2011 at 2:16 pm

      The tough topic of abortion will always be a contiversal one to say the least. As the issue stands now, the logical standpoint on abortion would be pro-life. With procedures as cruel and inhumane as D&X being used today, “partial birth” abortion techniques should be outlawed no matter the situation of the mother. Some pro-choice protesters claim that the procedure is used to save the mother in the case of a birthing emergency, yet the process takes days to perform as the mother’ s cervix must fully dialate before the operation is performed, according to James T. McMahon, MD, of Los Angeles, CA, in detailing for the US Congress about his experince with over 2,000 partial-birth abortions. In total 95% of all abortions are performed purely out of convenience for the mother; and according to McMahon out of the 2,000 partial-birth abortions he had performed only 9% of the mothers maternal health indications (most common of which was depression). The fact that pro-choice advocates claim that partial-birth abortion is a last resort, rare procedure is not a valid rebuttle to the gruesome truth of partial-birth abortions. When the option “saved” for emergency and rare situations only is given to women not in that situation, the imorality of the situation is quickly questioned. Abortion will always be a hot topic, yet the decision I stand by will not topic for discussion, pro-life is my “choice.”

       
    • Hunter Tuck

      March 22, 2011 at 2:18 pm

      The true answer to your first question is no one really knows that for sure. It has been tagged with many opinions over the years, but the truth is no one knows for sure. One expert says this and another that. “It is one of the enduring questions of religion and science, and lately of American politics: When does a fertilized egg become a person?’ (Abcarian 4) I believe that it is a mother’s choice on whether or not her child should be born or not. In some cases abortion may be the best due to the circumstances in the mother’s life at the given time. One retired gynecologist by the name of waldo fielding wrote a piece entitled Repairing the Damage Before the Roe. In it he talks of the days before the Wade vs. Roe trial. “Yet there are few physicians today who can relate to them from personal experience. I can,” Fielding stated in an interview. (Fielding 7) “Fielding offers his personal experience tending to pregnant women before Roe v. Wade made abortion legal. Fielding relates incidents of women’s “desperate need to terminate a pregnancy” by using “any method available. (Fielding 8). If anyone were to know about such a subject, Fielding would be the guy.

       
    • Travis Hagler

      March 22, 2011 at 2:21 pm

      Nobody really knows when life actually begins. Many experts have said that it happens as soon as the egg is fertilized but others have said that it isnt life until the baby is born. So there is really no accurate answer to that question. Nobody has the right to take a life but the argument is about when it is considered taking a life and when it is not. Some people may feel that if they take the pill the day after than they arent taking a life. Nobody should be punished for an abortion it is not murder to choose to not have a kid. I think that if a woman wants an abortion than she should be able to get an abortion.

       
    • Breanna Cornett

      March 22, 2011 at 2:24 pm

      Abortion is a reoccuring debate that has the country by storm. They want to know if it is really constitutional for a fetus or embryo to have life. If I were to have a say in this debate I am for pro life. It is to be said so I heard, that a fetus has a beating heart at 6 weeks. Most women dont find out they are pregnant until the earliest of 3 weeks. some don’t find out for a month. If the woman decides to get an abortion after not knowing for a month she was pregnant, according to some people, as refrenced in the article “Regulating the rights of the unborn,” say that people can go to jail for potentionally harming the fetus. Some say that women can go to jail for smoking a cigarette and or abusing drugs and alcohol. Men can go to jail for harming a pregnant woman. They are wanting to say that the mother can go to jail for aborting the baby. I to an extent agree with the concerns and they should be punished.

       
    • Kase Saunders

      March 22, 2011 at 10:07 pm

      Abortion has been a controversial subject of debate for many years now. What it all boils down to is the question yes or no, should there be an abortion or should there not be one. For most women, abortion is a tough choice. They must consider the pros and cons of both sides of the question. Religion is the main factor for many women to consider; if their religion will or will not allow or like the abortion. Another factor is the obvious, do they want a kid? Potential parents must be both physically and finacially ready to support and raise a child. The parents of the pregnant daughter also play a key role in the decision. It is the women’s body and choice.States should not have to help make the decision for them by any means. Personally, I do not support abortion. Mainly because of the effects it has onthe women and their families. Many people consider abortion to be killing other people, but others consider it to be just killing a few cells. Who’s to say those “few cells” won’t grow up to be someone big one day? I do not support abortion but I also do not like when people are forced into a decision. I believe the choice of having an abortion or not should be left to the women who is pregnant, and that no matter what her choice is, the people who love her should support her decision whether they agree with it or not. God gave us free will, so the government should not be trying to take it away from us.

       
    • Paige Sexton

      March 23, 2011 at 1:32 am

      Abortion should always be the last possible option when concerning a pregnancy. A fetus is a human life and has a right to live. This is a term known as fetal protectionism (Regulating the Rights of the Unborn). Not only does abortion kill the fetus but it is harmful to the host as well. Recent studies have shown that there is a link between breast cancer and abortion. They show that termination of pregnancy interrupts cellular changes that occur in the breast during pregnancy (10 Arguments For Abortion 10 Arguments Against Abortion). There are also other harmful side effects such as future ectopic pregnancies, pelvic inflammatory disease, and psychological pain and stress.

       
    • Matthew Luce

      March 23, 2011 at 6:21 pm

      Abortion has been an issue for quite some time. Since the 1950s it has been disputed and debated. Women would try and give themselves abortions because they had no idea what to do (Fouhy). Today, abortion is something that is legal and safe. Abortion is only legally allowed to be performed by a medical professsional (Abcarian). Americans have been divided into two camps: Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. Many people don’t know what the difference is between these two sides. Pro-Choice means that you think a woman should be able to decide if and when she gets an abortion. Pro-Life, on the other hand, means that you think there is no reason to ever abort your baby and it should be kept (Fielding). These sides appeared around the time of Roe v. Wade. A woman should be able to choose if and when she wants to eliminate her child. It’s her body, let her do with it what she wants. No one knows the exact moment life begins anyway. It’s a simple matter of not concerning oneself with an issue that isn’t theirs to debate.

       
    • Phillip Powell

      March 24, 2011 at 7:06 pm

      This isn’t one of my topics, but I have a question for you guys when it comes to “the fetus isn’t actually alive.”

      If it isn’t alive, then why do you kill it? To say it isn’t alive because it depends on the mother to “live” is to say you aren’t alive because you rely on Earth to “live”.

       
      • Mrs. Biello

        March 24, 2011 at 7:14 pm

        Great point, Phillip!

         
    • Casie

      March 25, 2011 at 3:44 am

      I’m going to have to side with pro-choice on a number of reasons. For one, if abortion was banned, it would not be stopped. There would be cheap black market “doctors” to induce the abortions, without any medical supervision. Banning abortion will not put an end to abortion; it will just put women’s lives at risk. Another would be pro-life advocates constantly saying “life begins at the moment of conception”, but that is scientifically proven to be false. Human life actually begins prior to conception, because each sperm and egg cell is a living thing. It is more relevant to discuss when “sentience, or self-awareness, begins” within the fetus. And the answer to that is “fetal nerve cells can react to trauma, but pain reception requires a neocortex–which is not formed until early in the third trimester”. As well as, the fetus is not capable of consciousness until the third trimester, and most likely will remain unconscious until birth.
      http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/tp/abortionmyths.htm

       
      • Casie

        March 25, 2011 at 4:13 am

        Also, things occurr in life when it may be necessary for an abortion. Yes you should take the responsibilty of your actions and have the baby, but the law shouldnt be based on one person’s reasonings or morals for women as a whole. It’s a personal choice and a personal matter. God created free will for a reason.

         
    • Lindsay Peterson

      March 27, 2011 at 9:05 pm

      Based on research regarding both sides of the debate, I would be against abortion. Scientifically, life begins upon fertillization. Also, American politics were founded on the natural rights of all human beings. So, if a fetus is legally considered a person, then abortion infringes on their rights according to the article “Regulating the Rights of the Unborn”. And the article “The Legal Conception of a Person” states that a poll was taken from the “egg-as-person” movement which stated that 51% of voters were against abortion. Even though that is only a slight majority, it should come to the attention of our current government. Everyone who works for the government is supposed to represent the people of the US. Therefore, if the American population becomes a majority of pro-life advocates, then abortion should not be legal.

       
    • hunter lecroy

      May 9, 2011 at 1:04 am

      i am pro choice how ever im not strongly opinionated on the topic i do believe the women should have the right to chose what she wants to do . how ever im ok with the womens choice i believe there should be a cap on time period of pregnancy that should be set for an abortion to not be allowed anylonger. i deffinatly belive the choice should be availble tho simply cause if some one is gonna do it they will do it if its illegal or not and if the are illegal they will be secretive and dangerous for the most part. that is why i feel it should be a choice and should remain legal.

       
  7. Mrs. Biello

    March 16, 2011 at 6:06 pm

    Health Care

    Last year, the government (your representatives) voted to mandate healthcare for every one. Some view this as a great opportunity to provide healthcare to those who could not otherwise afford it, and others view it as one less freedom we have to choose because you are fined if you don’t buy it. Do you believe healthcare should be a mandate or a choice? What are the pros and cons of either side of the debate? Use sources from your research to back up your argument.

     
    • Savannah Short

      March 22, 2011 at 1:01 pm

      Homeopathic healthcare is a personal choice for everyone. While it may seem more dangerous because it is not legally regulated, it is actually just as safe as regulated healthcare. Whether someone prefers to have a licensed doctor or a homepathic doctor is their option. Even President Obama made a statement that he does not discourage or condone the use of homeopathic medicine, he just wants America to become a healthier country (‘Alternative’ Medicine is Mainstream)

       
      • Mrs. Biello

        March 22, 2011 at 2:13 pm

        Savannah, the debate is not baout the type ofhealthcare, it is about whether or not the government should be able to force you to buy something even if you don’t want it!

         
    • Hunter Tuck

      March 22, 2011 at 1:12 pm

      Healthcare should definitely be a choice. The government cannot make you do anything that you do not want to do. That violates your rights and freedoms as a citizen. Although there are some positives to the healthcare bill, the bad ultimately out weighs the good. “The new healthcare bill will provide healthcare for all,” (McDermott 2). Yes, maybe so, but at the expense of who? The upper classes in the social ladder? “The new healthcare bill will act as a stimulus, stimulating the economt in the short term and reducing long term benefits,” (Brown 4). What about 1 trillion dollars of spending will actually help the economy? Sure it may increase the availability and quality of healthcare for everyone, but the Americans clearly don’t want it. “Despite losing all of the statewide races last year in Virginia and New Jersey, the Democratic Party–under the urging of Pres. Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Senate majority leader Harry Reid–pressed forward with a health care bill that a majority of citizens rejected.” (Staver 2). Therefore, this new healthcare bill is a horrible idea that will do more harm than happiness in the long run.

       
      • Mrs. Biello

        March 22, 2011 at 2:13 pm

        Please cite a study where yhey found that quality of healthcare would increase?!?!

         
    • Paige Sexton

      March 22, 2011 at 1:39 pm

      Health care should not be mandated. The nationalization of the health industry will stifle competition and reduce innovation, which leads to a lower quailty of care ( Health Care Reform.) Due to more government involvement Americans will lose billions of dollars (Health Care Reform). Additionally, it can be said that mandated health care is a violation of constituational law. Under the terms of our constitution, individuals have a right to care for their health, However, it is not implied that the government should provide said health care to indiviuals. (The chains of Health Care in Our No-Longer-Free Society).

       
      • Mrs. Biello

        March 22, 2011 at 2:15 pm

        Thank you!

         
    • Breanna Cornett

      March 22, 2011 at 2:22 pm

      Health care is important for all Americans, but the government can’t force every single person to be able to afford insurance. They don’t know the background and financial issues with the people that don’t have insurance. The people have a Constitutional right to determine if they have insurance. I think that the government has the right idea but they cannot force anyone to buy something they cannot afford. They have a say.

       
    • Travis Hagler

      March 22, 2011 at 2:24 pm

      Healthcare shouldnt be a required bill it should be offered to people but not mandated. Most people were happy with the current health care bill i dont think that a new one should be necessary. The richer you are the more you get smacked in the face by the healthcare bill. So small businesses would get destroyed foor the requirementsto have it. It has its stong points like doctors will be assembled in teams of doctors so they can work faster than a single physician.

       
    • Erin Eitenmiller

      March 23, 2011 at 2:40 am

      There should be no reform on healthcare. It is solely not the governments job to pay or even have rules put onto healthcare (Ryan). In all reality, the government is suppose to help out its citizens with their natural rights, but it is not suppose to take control of them (Ryan). Healthcare reform gives Congress the power to force every person to buy a product (healthcare) and participate in a market (healthcare) that they might not want to put their money into (Staver). No one wants to be forced to buy something they do not want to. Healthcare should be up to the insurance companies and the buyers, not to the government.

       
    • Savannah Short

      March 23, 2011 at 4:53 pm

      While the government likes to believe that they are benefiting American society by regulating healthcare, they are actually being quite contradictory. America was set up on the idea of freedom of choice and the right to have ones own beliefs, including choosing to have healtcare. If the government forces healthcare on its people, they will not only be hurting citizens but America itself. Individuals, employers, small businesses, etc. would all suffer from being forced to purchase healthcare. (Undoing the Unthinkable) and (Obama Care vs. Small Business).

       
    • Phillip Powell

      March 24, 2011 at 1:59 am

      We should not be forced to buy health care insurance, but the fact is that you would have to pay any hospital bills you acquire while not covered. So while you’re not “forced” to buy health care, you could end up with a bill measuring in the hundreds of thousands BEFORE interest should you have a serious injury or illness, but we’ve been doing it for this long and we can continue doing it. “Some of you may ask here: But can people afford health care on their own? Even leaving aside the present government-inflated medical prices, the answer is: Certainly people can afford it. Where do you think the money is coming from right now to pay for it all—where does the government get its fabled unlimited money?” (Hunnicutt) Either you play it safe and buy insurance, or you take a chance that you and your family may be left with the bill, but the choice should always remain yours.

      “Health Care Is Not a Right.” Universal Health Care. Ed. Susan C. Hunnicutt. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 23 Mar. 2011.

       
    • Casie

      March 25, 2011 at 4:05 am

      Healthcare now established as mandated truly goes against our freedom in America. The plan will create healthcare for everyone, but it will not make it satisfactory for anyone. This “well thought out” plan will require cuts in Medicare. The elderly will see dramatic changes (lessening changes) in their benefits. Any way you look at it, adding another $940 billion to the deficit is not good for the already awful US economy. A larger work load for our healthcare workers will just cause more stress on them. This means longer wait times, more obstacles, and most likely higher specialist costs for consumers. Last but not least, how do you believe the government is going to pay for this reform? More taxes would be the answer.
      http://www.businesspundit.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-the-new-health-care-reform-bill/

       
    • Lindsay Peterson

      March 27, 2011 at 9:20 pm

      According to Gale Opposing Viewpoints, most developed countries guarantee insurance for all citizens from the government which means most people around the world are forced to pay for healthcare. This is a point that was made for healthcare saying that since the rest of the world is forced to pay for healthcare why can’t we? America has always been esteemed as a free country where people can invest their money wherever they choose to. That is why we should not be forced to pay for healthcare. It is unconstitutional and an article from SIRS Researcher states that “the natural right to eat is not the same as the government owning our farms.” Because of its unconstitutionality, the reform could be overturned by the Supreme Court in the future.

       
  8. Nikki Kelley

    March 22, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    The problem I have with guns isn’t the larger guns like ones used in war or hunting, it’s hand guns. If we regulated the use of those, we’d have a lot less crime in most places because a large majority of people aren’t stupid enough to turn to the bigger guns in scenarios like a drive-by shooting or bank robbery. Also, there are other means of protecting oneself, so why not discontinue the production and use of hand guns all together?

     
  9. Nikki Kelley

    March 22, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    Like most everything else in America, we do have our own choices/opinions about abortion, and although it would personally be my last choice, I think it should remain an option. It’s a personal issue, and it should be regulated, but I think it needs to still be legal in certain cases.

     
  10. Matthew Luce

    March 22, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    Social Security Reform (Privatization)

    Social Security needs to undergo privatization. A personal account will yield more savings, even with fluxuations in the economy (Glassman). Retirement benefits are much lower today than they have been in the past. Once this generation retires and Social Security is gone, we’ll need something to help us out. A low-risk portfolio with 3% returns sounds nice, doesn’t it? (Shipman) People are living longer every year. We need more flexibility in our lives. Social Security is a regressive tax, so it will increase over time. I think a change is in order; sooner rather than later (Marron).

     
  11. Matthew Luce

    March 22, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    Nuclear Power

    Nuclear Power isn’t the dangerous, frightening thing seen in certain 80s movies or various comic books. Nuclear Power is safe and eco-friendly. It leaves a small carbon footprint, is dependable and will last (Brand). Look at coal for example. Coal will, eventually, run out. There are plans for 100 new nuclear plants to be build around the world in the coming years. These plants will be more efficent and last a lot longer than coal will (Will). Apart from the benefits from the energy generated, all these nuclear plants will create hundreds of jobs per plant. It’s just one more small reason why nuclear just makes sense (Candris).

     
  12. Breanna Cornett

    March 22, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    Abortion is a reoccuring debate that has the country by storm. They want to know if it is really constitutional for a fetus or embryo to have life. If I were to have a say in this debate I am for pro life. It is to be said so I heard, that a fetus has a beating heart at 6 weeks. Most women dont find out they are pregnant until the earliest of 3 weeks. some don’t find out for a month. If the woman decides to get an abortion after not knowing for a month she was pregnant, according to some people, as refrenced in the article “Regulating the rights of the unborn,” say that people can go to jail for potentionally harming the fetus. Some say that women can go to jail for smoking a cigarette and or abusing drugs and alcohol. Men can go to jail for harming a pregnant woman. They are wanting to say that the mother can go to jail for aborting the baby. I to an extent agree with the concerns and they should be punished.

     
  13. Breanna Cornett

    March 22, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    Is nuclear power really the best alternative to resort to? The use of carbon energy is greatly affecting the enviroment by all the CO2 produced. In the article “Nuclear power is safe, sound…and green,” they say if a 1 gigawatt coal plant burns 3 million tons of fuel a year and produces 7 million tons of CO2 what is that doing to the enviroment? I agree along with it destroying the enviroment, it is also endangering the lives of the miners that accumulate the coal to be burned. There has been many fatalities occuring in the coal mines. The government needs to keep the saftey of the people in mind and if that requires a little more expensive, then so be it.

     
  14. Lindsey Taylor

    March 22, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    Nuclear Enegy (Pro)
    -Safe storage and less waste
    -small footprint
    -Dependable baseload energy
    -Nuclear waste is miniscule in size- one coke can’s worth per person- lifetime of electricity if it were all nuclear
    -You can get decent power without gov power
    -Zero have been killed by generating nuclear energy
    -cheap energy
    -reduce carbon foot print
    -nuclear energy has created at least 15,000 jobs
    (Nuclear Energy is Green, and being green is what this planet needs. Nuclear power is a new and effective way to create energy. We need renewable resourses that are effective and not costly. Nuclear Energy can provide that. Wind and solar power are just not getting the job done. They are not as effective as nuclear power and only accont for less than 5 % of the U.S.’ total electricity supply. Not only is not used effeciently but wind and solar power is not effecient and not cheap. Yet solar power is cheap and effecient. Another reason why we should use nuclear energy because we are running out of our nonrenewable resources and they are becoming to coastly. Gasoline, oil and coal prices have all sky rocketed. Not only can we no longer pay these prices but these sources of energy are polluting our enviroment. Thus another good reason for supporting nuclear energy. If we use nuclear energy we will be able to reduce the carbon foot print and help save our enviroment. Not only will nuclear energy help our enviroments and save our wallets from being empty, it will also help create jobs. Just within the last two years nuclear energy industry has created over 15,000 jobs in the U.S. alone.

     
  15. Damani Scott

    March 22, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    I believe that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion under any circumstances she sees fit. Whether or not a woman wants to have a child is a choice that should be solely hers, as legislation prohibiting the abortion of a fetus would impede upon her civil rights. A woman’s body is her own, and to have a federal law stating what she can and cannot do with it is a perversion and a mockery of the supposed “liberty and justice for all” that is promised to each American citizen. The SIRS Researcher Database states that many young feminists have been turned toward abortion rights, in support of a movement that they thought had been solved in 1973 with Roe v. Wade.
    As there is no consensus as to when life begins, for most it is a matter of religion and/or science, considering that the first heartbeat is found within 4-6 weeks. A common argument against abortion is religion, yet for those who are not religious and want to have an abortion, that argument is invalid. However, if a woman is religious, the choice to have an abortion should be one made between the woman and her respective god, not by an outsider that thinks its wrong.

     
  16. Savannah Padgett

    March 23, 2011 at 1:20 am

    Considering past foreign involvement, concerning this country and the affairs of others, a negative shadow has been cast on a country and superpower that can not only effectively change the world, but can do so in a way that could increase the general well-fare of the global population.
    Revolution is currently sweeping the Middle East, a region that has been, not controlled, but has beaten its citizens with the powers of criminal submission. People are afraid to speak, leaders ready to destroy the lives of those willing to create opposition. Yet, the moment has struck and people are angry, lashing out and rapidly dissolving the tyrants who have kept them in captivity for as long as fifty years.
    In particular, there is a country that is sweeping and taking claim to the majority of current headlines. Libya was a country just as oppressed as the likes of Egypt and Tunisia, but with a leader less willing to back down. Muammar Gaddafi is a man who has been ready to strike against civilians the moment they started kicking up the dust. Most of the dictators left to seek safety and refuge, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt stepping down a mere twenty-one days after protests had began. Gaddafi is different, and so is the military fighting for him. The trend so far has been a quick ousting of the tyrants who have asked their military to attack the people, the military quickly turning on their commands and fighting with the people. In Libya, the military is standing with their leader and those who stand in the way are quickly taken care of. Civilians are being attacked, and this country is experiencing war crimes per definition of the UN council.
    Why is all of this important? Its important to consider the situation and approach the concept of intervention with facts and an unbiased mind. Most remember Iraq intervention, something that is still happening. This has cast a shadow on an event that truly deserves the efforts of the world. The “War on Terrorism” is one that was ineffectively kept alive, its purpose draining our economy and casting a negative light on actually trying to make a difference. With not only new leadership, but an opportunity to make a difference and save people, intervention in Libya is a necessary option.

    Sources:
    http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/egypt/index.html

    http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/latest-updates-on-war-in-libya-and-mideast-protests/?ref=world

     
  17. Savannah Padgett

    March 23, 2011 at 1:32 am

    Nuclear power, what has it really done for us? Some argue that it helps counter “global warming,” making our dependency on nonrenewable resources that much easier to bypass. Though, you must consider, at what cost? Currently there is no global regulation on the ways of keeping nuclear energy completely safe. What you see in Japan is a lack of responsibility. There are nuclear reactors that are currently melting down, and sweeping the coast with harmful radiation. Radiation doesn’t just wash away, it sticks around and affects the generations to come. These nuclear plants weren’t equipped to handle the catastrophic events of the tsunami, caused by an earthquake that Japan has dealt with before. With the knowledge of geographical location and previous natural disasters, the right precautions should have happened. This is only one instance where nuclear power has created problems for the people, so its not that its bad and shouldn’t exist, its more of an issue of regulation that will keep the global population safe.

    Sources:
    http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE|EJ3010132276&mode=view

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/business/energy-environment/23chernobyl.html?_r=1&ref=science

     
  18. Lindsey Taylor

    March 23, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    Abortion
    – Personhood and constitutional rights to embryos from the moment of conception
    – An egg is a person
    – The termination of an embryo is considered murder
    -abortion is immoral
    -fetuses have rights
    Abortion is one of the most controversial issues in America. You are either pro choice or pro life. In being pro life you believe that fetuses have rights and that since fetuses don’t have a voice, you have to be the voice. Abortion is killing; fetuses are people who can’t stand up for themselves. Just because you get an abortion when the fetuses is really young doesn’t mean that it is not murder. Abortion is murder.

     
  19. Lindsey Taylor

    March 23, 2011 at 2:05 pm

    Libya
    I believe that we should not be involved with Libya. Libya has brought this issue on themselves so they should deal with it themselves. “The United States is already bogged down in two wars. It can’t be seen as intervening unilaterally in another Muslim nation. But even with multinational support, we should not have to shoulder the brunt of this conflict.”

     
  20. Michael Thompson

    March 23, 2011 at 6:32 pm

    Abortion
    Abortion should be kept legal and it should not be banned. Women should have the right to decide for themselves whether they want to terminate the pregnancy and it should not be the government’s decision. If abortions were illegal, then women would try to induce them themselves or try it in a “back alley” procedure that would put their lives at risk. Abortion is not murder because it is performed before the fetus has developed into a person. A fetus is not a person and it never will be. It is not a person until it delivered from the mother’s womb. Also, it is better for babies to be aborted than grow up poor and neglected. Many women would not care for the child if they could not abort it and leading to it having a poor upbringing. Abortion keeps the crime rate down because there are less neglected kids to grow up to live a life of crime.

    http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=S4450859-0-362&artno=0000307442&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=Abortion%2C%20Moral%20and%20ethical%20aspects&title=At%20Issue%3A%20Abortion%2C%20Moral%20and%20Ethical%20Aspects&res=Y&ren=Y&gov=Y&lnk=Y&ic=N

    http://www.balancedpolitics.org/abortion.htm

     
  21. Michael Thompson

    March 24, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    Healthcare Reform
    I believe the new Healthcare bill is good and it should be a mandate. The government is just looking out for their own people and they are doing this because they want people to experience long and healthy lives. This emphasizes the “pursuit of happiness” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, our government just wants their people to be happy. They know they cannot be happy when many cannot afford healthcare and have to experience the misery of death. With the new bill, there is more coverage and coverage has expanded to 95% of legal U.S. residents. Studies have shown that people without health insurance have a shorter lifespan, so the government just wants their citizens to live longer. Also preventative care is now free, so more people have access to vaccines. The new bill is about saving lives even if it means more taxes. The new bill also makes prescriptions cheaper for senior citizens and healthcare benefits are now more affordable for employers. The government is thinking of our struggling economy, by making helping employers afford healthcare for their employees. Insurance companies now have to accept everyone and there is a more completive insurance industry which means no more rigging prices. There are also no more pre-existing condition exclusions that used to stop many people from getting healthcare. There are also no more limits on coverage.
    Source
    http://www.businesspundit.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-the-new-health-care-reform-bill/

     
  22. Michael Thompson

    March 24, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    Nuclear Power
    I believe that nations should shut down their nuclear reactors and put an end to nuclear energy as a power source. Nuclear power generates a lot of waste that is dangerous and must be careful looked after in special facilities. This nuclear waste takes over 10,000 years for nuclear waste to be considered safe and left unmonitored. We should be spending extra money to run nuclear waste facilities if it takes this long for it to be considered safe. Also, as evident in Japan, nuclear power accidents can still happen and there is always a probability of an accident happening. If an accident does happen it has very harmful effects such as causing many deaths and environmental harm. The more nuclear power plants that we build the more possibility there is of an accident. If there is an accident, radiation can contaminate large areas. The radioactivity remains in the area for many years making it unfit to live in.
    Sources
    http://www.greenenergyhelpfiles.com/articles/20.htm

    http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-and-sustainability

     
  23. Damani Scott

    March 25, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    The american government is looking into alternate and cleaner fuel sources as opposed to fossil fuels. Nuclear Energy has drawn much attention to itself, as it is environmentally friendly, worker friendly, and also an economic investment for theses recessionary times.
    According to the SIRS database, Nuclear energy produces “one Coke can’s” worth fo waste per person. However, coal energy — the primary energy source for the U.S. — creates both 68 tons of solid waste AND 77 tons of Carbon Dioxide per person.
    Fossil fuels also require workers to mine the coal, or work sea-based oil rigs. Hundreds of American mine workers have died from mining accidents or premature death from mining-related ailments. In 55 years of generating nuclear energy, no Americans have been killed generating nuclear energy.
    Lastly, electricity demand in the U.S. is expected to grow 21% by 2030. With fossil fuels being a limited natural resource and alternate energy sources (wind and solar) only accounting for about 5% of current energy output, America needs an energy source that can satisfy it’s infastructural needs.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: