Blog about a Blog #2

I have chosen to comment on the article “Loss of Funds for National Parks” written by J.B Newhouse.  I’ll start of by saying I agree with the author’s argument of the government not doing enough to preserve our national parks. Our government must really start to take into consideration the state of health that some of national parks are in and they must act quickly.  As the author pointed out, what’s the point of the government spending a ton of money on getting people to live longer when they are just setting them up to live in a unhealthy environment due to lack of preservation by the United States government.  I like how the author points out that we spent 145,000,000 on a missile that we’ll only use once, it makes you really wonder about the decision making is being made in our government system.  Now I also do realize that national security is a focal point of most countries around the world but, a country still must be willing to take care of its national land in order to make their country a place where people feel safe, healthy, and want to spend the rest of their lives.  I like how the author is not afraid to speak his mind, and how he strongly defends his opinions by making very blunt statements.  I really liked reading this blog because I could really feel the author’s anger and frustration towards the government for the lack of funds that have been sent to national parks.

Privatize, To Big of A Risk?

Social security and the care for the elderly have been at the top of America’s issues for a extensive amount of time now and is still left in the waiting, because no one wants to make the big move and handle the big problems.

Then the idea of privatizing hit the table (Coming from the Republicans), this would allow retirees to be able to control and maintain their own funds in which they PIA’s (personal investment accounts). There are several reasons why people are supporting this bill but here are just a few of the top reasons. Person’s supporting the privatizing of social security feel that they would have the luxury of investing their own money as the saw fit. That being said, it would bring them higher investment returns rather having the government handle it and come back with lower returns. Followers also see how the existing program will require deep cuts in benefits and tax hikes in order to avoid the collapse of S.S. privatizing would be funded with an existing payroll tax which would avoid any of these substantial cuts.

             All in all I see how their intentions and ideas sound really good at first thought but protection is what retirees want and I don’t see how putting a good amount of people who don’t know anything about controlling stocks and doing to scream PROTECTION to any retiree.  Benefits is big part of what the social security system is about “taking care of our elderly and providing for the deprived” if this bill were to pass it reduce benefit levels by as much as 44% below the levels of 2005 over the next 5 decades. Now if its benefits that people are asking for then this plan would need to find way to substantially change a portion of the bill in order to fit the benefit needs that American retiree want. Social Security is a program that provides benefits through a single centralized process that is run by our U.S. government.  The privatization of individual retiree accounts would create a sort of decentralized system that will have to adhere to the many different and wide arrays of preferences and options not including the investor’s expectations.

       A question I have is how will they be able to help and protect the thousands of people who have no clue of what they’re doing in the market?  If you don’t have a clue as to how to find your way around the market then people become victims of deceitful stock brokers. Retirees looking at this proposal should ask themselves, is risky my money in today’s economy, something that I would be leaning towards?

Blog about a Blog

The blog that I chose to critique was Super Committee to Save the Day by Angel Sandoval. In reading the article I liked the amount of information and statistics that were put into her blog in order to really explain the significance of the entire situation. The editorial in itself is very much worth reading. Her explanation of the of the reduction plan, of the committee and, the importance that lies on twelve people’s shoulders can really help the average person who is not really involved in politics better understand the situation. She also was very clear on her doubts and opinions of the committee which was also backed up with very credible information.

I do very much agree with the thought of their name being very childish and I could have sworn they are trying to sort out trillions of dollars not fifty dollars from a lemonade stand. I also agree with her doubtfulness of the group and their ability to come agreements with one another considering the fact that six of them are democrats and the others are republicans. The fact that the two parties cant get past other differences, to get negotiations for the reduction plan on the right track is baffling to me. Aren’t these twelve party representative’s supposed to be the best at getting this plan where it needs to be in order to get through congress? And yet they’ve been stuck in a stand still worrying about who’s leaking what to the media and who to point the finger at if the job does not get done.  Agreeing with the author, plans optimistically form quickly or else congress will have no reduction plan to consider.