Pro-Jobs or Pro-Environment



If President Obama really is pro-jobs, why hasn't he given his approval of the Keystone Pipeline Project? The Keystone Pipeline project will run a new pipeline through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas. They predict that the project would create over 20,000 jobs in 2011-2012. It would also provide 20 billion dollars for the U.S. economy and over 5 billion dollars to the states the pipeline would run through.

Has President Obama not given his approval because he does not want to lose the support of environmentalists in the next election? Is Obama holding off on his decision because he has two different groups giving him money and it is another Moneyocracy problem? One objection to the pipeline is that the company should invest in more clean energy to create jobs. The problem is that creating jobs with clean energy takes longer than the pipeline would if it was approved. The government has been investing in clean energy and has created very little jobs. Others opposing the the project say that they are worried that the pipeline could hurt the environment. My rebuttal to that objection is if our economy goes into a depression or if no one has jobs will the state of the environment matter?

Some of the farmers that own the farmland that the pipeline are also objecting the pipeline because they do not want their land taken from them. I somewhat understand the farmers opposition. Several of my friend and family own land in Nebraska, but the pipeline will not go through their land. The one thing I would ask the farmers that the pipeline would go through would be isn't it worth it if you have to give up a little to help the country you live in?

Chance of an Independent Candidate

Is it possible to have an Independent as President? The has only been one President that could be possible be classified as Independent. That President would be George Washington. The reason I say possibly is because the party system had not developed until after was became President.

In our country, does an Independent Presidential candidate have a chance in the elections? Since our country is ran on Democracy, Americans would like to say yes to that question. As I discussed in one of my previous posts "Is Our Country Ran on Democracy of Moneyocracy", at least the last two Presidential races have been won by the candidate that raised or spent the most money, Since many Independent candidates cannot reach as many Americans as a candidate that is affiliated with the Democrat of Republican party they are not able to raise as much money. Thus has a huge affect on how much of a chance the Independent candidate has to become President.

Another reason that an Independent candidate has less of a chance than a party-affiliated candidates is the news media. Nowadays it seems that the mainstream news media only cover Democrat of Republican stories. This causes Americans who receive their information from those sources to only hear about those party-affiliated candidates. Does the news media only show those candidates because they are biased? Do Independent candidates need to be accused of sexual harassment or speak like they are drunk at a speech to create news? Would the mainstream news still ignore those candidates?

The news media should not cover stories because they add shock value or it follows their agenda. Their job is to inform and not be biased. They should allow their listeners to make their own decisions. Why have Americans allowed the media to be biased?

Is Our Country Ran on Democracy or Moneyocracy?

Lately it seems as if the people's vote in elections matter as much as money does. According to the Federal Election Commission, in the 2008 presidential election Barack Obama raised over 745 million dollars and John McCain raised over 219 million dollars for their campaigns. Obama spent over 729 million dollars and McCain spent over 202 million dollars on their campaigns. In the 2004 election Bush raised over 269 million dollars and spent over 268 million on his campaign. That same election Kerry raised over 234 million dollars and spent over 224 million on his campaign for presidency. When looking at these statistics, the candidate who raised the most funds or spent the most was the one who won the election that year.

So have the millions of dollars in fundraising turned our election process into a moneyocracy instead of a democracy like our founding fathers wanted for America? A person should get voted or not voted into the presidency based on whether or not the people agree with their values, past record, or stance or certain issues. People should not be eliminated from the race because they simply do not have enough money to keep running. What can be done to fix this issue? Should political advertisements be banned? Should there be a cap on how much money one's campaign can raise? Should there be a certain dollar amount on how much one can start their campaign with and then can't raise anymore funds?

The over 745 million dollars that was raised by the Obama campaign could have been used on better things than campaigning. Those millions of dollars could have been used to create tons of jobs or stimulate our economy. If many people or corporations are willing to donate an upwards of 1 billion dollars between two candidates, why are they complaining about paying more taxes? Keep in mind I don't thing raising taxes is the all might solution to our problems.

Anyone have anyother ideas on how to prevent a Moneyocracy from happening in the future?

Sources: 2008 Presidential Campaign Financial Activity Summarized;  2004 Presidential Campaign Financial Activity Summarized

Are we at a Standstill or is America Splitting Apart or Both

It seems as if our country or rather congress is at a standstill. From what I have read, watched, or been told, is that since we are heading into an election year, Democrats do not want to pass anything that has been created by Republicans even if they agree with it. On the flip side, Republicans do not want to pass anything that has been written by Democrats regardless if they agree with it or not. the reason behind this is that neither of them want the other party to look better. Many representatives have said that they have submitted many proposals but congress will either not even vote or just not pass them. Is this not what they are paid to do vote on proposals or better yet pass bills? Why pay these congress men and women if they are not doing their jobs?

So what is going to happen? Well if you have been paying attention to the news then you have been seeing President Obama going around Congress to try and get things done. Is this something that should be done? Maybe! We will have to wait and see how it pans out but at least something is trying to be done.

If Congress is not doing anything and if Americans are very dissapointed in Congress, then why do we need them. It would save the country quite a bit of money by not having to pay them. Maybe things would actually get accomplished.

If Congress was gone what could be done to help the country? I have thought that we could have the House of Representatives write bills and then they could be voted on by the people. The argument to that would be that not everyone will vote. Well to counteract that this would get more people to vote and if someone doesn't vote then they have no one else to blame besides themselves if they do not like what is passed. This would also create jobs since people have to run the polls when a bill comes up for vote. Another argument is who would keep those bills in check to make sure that they are not unconstitutional. Well we have the judicial system to ensure this.

It is just an idea. Something drastic needs to happen in this country for it to change. Regardless if you agree or not it is something to think about. Feel free to let me know what you think. There will be more posts to come on a varitey of topics related to politics and the government.

MTOG (Quick name for this blog)