Ben Carson's Statements on Gun Control

“I would not just stand there and let him shoot me, I would say: ‘Hey, guys, everybody attack him! He may shoot me, but he can’t get us all.’ ”

This is the statement that Ben Carson  made in response to the recent school shooting in Oregon which left nine people dead, ranging in ages from 18 to 67.
He made this statement because he was defending gun rights, stating that the second amendment was sacred and does not in fact cause spilled blood. He claimed that it was in fact the victims themselves who do not have the courage to stand up to their attacker, which is not only lacking in sympathy but also highly in correct. 
He blamed Obama for politicizing the event by embracing the families of the deceased, yet this was and inevitability of such a tragedy. An event like this is bound to have a drastic impact on policy and politics, especially due to the constant debate over gun control and the governments role in restricting it. Therefore, he made the above statement saying that he would have fought back in a situation like this.
He then went even further as to say that he believes that arming the "good guys" is the answer. Once of Carson's solutions was to have the NRA train kindergarden teachers in weaponry. Saying that it would instill a sense of comfort in the class room... which is quite paradoxical. 
Carson is not the only one to struggle with mustering sympathy towards these mass shootings when discussing gun control. Jeb Bush was criticized for saying that "stuff happens" when asked about gun controls and the affect is has on mass shootings. Republicans have argued over and over again about how gun control is out the the federal governments control.
Do you think that gun control is within the scope of the federal governments powers? Do you believe that it should be restricted? How long to you think it will be before they begin to seriously act? And how should presidential candidates react to gun control and mass shootings?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/03/us/oregon-umpqua-community-college-shooting/
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/06/ben-carson-says-he-would-have-been-more-aggressive-against-oregon-gunman/?ref=politics

Controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Deal Awaits Congress Approval

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP, trade deal has been in the making for years and is very controversial. It consists of the U.S., Japan, Australia, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, Singapore, Vietnam, New Zealand, and Brunei. These 12 countries account for about 40% of the world’s economy. The deal would essentially create a free trade zone around the Pacific, including the lifting of tariffs and import quotas on products such as beef and butter; however, this deal intentionally leaves out the world’s second largest economy: China.

One hope for the TPP is that it will reduce China’s power in the global market, which would give smaller countries an opportunity to take their place in parts of the export market. In addition to U.S. hopes of slowing or negating China’s recent rapid rise, the U.S. hopes that the deal will help it to extend its influence in East Asia.

The deal is very controversial, and it was difficult for President Obama to even try to negotiate the deal. Critics of the deal says that TPP will cause unfair competition for U.S. made goods because it is impossible to be more economically efficient than companies that use low-wage workers overseas. A major opponent, the Economic Policy Institute, estimates that a similar trade agreement, NAFTA, cost the U.S. 700,000 jobs in its beginning 20 years, and TPP will do the same. Another point of criticism is that allows foreign companies to challenge another nation’s laws that impact them competing in their market. Critics say this will let companies from other countries to nullify U.S. safety rules and regulations. Even Democrats are afraid that the TPP will cost American manufacturing jobs and weaken environmental laws.

While it has opposition, the deal also has its support. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that 5 million U.S. jobs are connected to NAFTA, thus concluding that TPP will increase exports and support domestic jobs. TPP may also mean lower prices for consumer as and businesses. Economists argue that free trade will ultimately improve a nation’s wealth at the cost of some jobs being lost overseas. Most importantly, supporters emphasize the fact that TPP will ensure that the U.S. has a presence in the growing East Asian markets.

If the deal is passed, it will be very important to Obama’s legacy. However, it will be fiercely debated in Congress and also a topic of discussion in the upcoming election. Some candidates including Donald Trump and Ted Cruz have opposed it. Democrat Bernie Sanders sent out a tweet: “"In the Senate, I will do all that I can to defeat the TPP agreement.” Hillary Clinton has not spoken about it yet.

While it’s difficult to tell if TPP will help or hurt American jobs as there is differing data, I do think it’s important for the trade agreement to be passed, for it will aid in the curbing of China, which is the second largest economy in the world and is quickly growing. I also think it’s important for America to have a presence in the region. It also will help to strengthen alliances with nations such as Japan and potential allies such as Vietnam.

What do you think? Do you think the deal will help or hurt America’s economy? Is it important for America to be involved in the market in the Pacific or should we stay out of it? How will this impact Obama’s legacy? How will this impact the election?

Sources:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/05/news/economy/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-two-minutes/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/06/us-trade-tpp-idUSKCN0RZ0ZV20151006

http://time.com/4061197/tpp-obama-legacy/

Human Rights or a Waste of Government Money?

Recently, Bernie Sanders comments on his beliefs for college and health care have gained a lot of public attention.  He believes that free college and universal health care are not only a good idea but rather a human right.  Since many other posts today have focused on Sanders platform and his chances at the Presidency, this post will instead focus entirely on the issues he has brought to light.  

These are both very serious issues that continue to become a bigger deal.  Since 1980, health care prices have increased by 4 times what it was and the cost of college has multiplied by 8.  

I think when looking at the idea of universal health care, there are three options, the system we currently have, a private but closely regulated system, or a purely public system.  Around the world, most first-world countries offer free health care, with countries such as Great Britain having free public health care and countries such as Germany having closely regulated private health care.  Citizens in these countries have enjoyed a longer life span than Americans, which can partially be contributed to this but the main reason is likely the obesity problem that exists in this country.  Personally, I believe a system in which we have a private system for almost everyone, except those who really can not afford it that is closely regulated is the best system.  The current system is failing the people but at the same time having a purely public system would go against American ideals and be a major financial cost for the government.  This system is best, because it allows the people to be protected while at the same time not increasing taxes or putting the country even more in debt.  

When it comes to the issue of the price of college, despite the seriousness of the rising cost of college, I do not think the government can afford to make college free for everyone.  The fact remains that we are a nation in serious debt and for this reason we do not have the luxury to make college free for everyone.  I do think the government should definitely help lower the cost for public colleges which would in turn lower the cost for private colleges as well.  I think there should be an initiative to help those pursuing a law or medical degree.  These degrees require significant years of schooling and therefore significant costs and the truth is that many who would pursue these great professions simply cannot.  We have a massive shortage on both doctors and lawyers.  Also, helping remove the amount of student loan debt would actually help lower the cost of health care because doctors would not need to make as much in order to pay off their debt.

I leave you all with these questions:

Do you believe that as Bernie Sanders put it, universal health care and free college are human rights?

What do you think is the most plausible yet efficient system going forward?  What are potential consequences of other platforms?

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/magazine/is-college-tuition-too-high.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/opinion/universal-health-care.html

http://usuncut.com/news/sanders-critics-free-college-health-care-not-controversial/

If Not Now, When is the "Right Time" for Improving Gun Control?

In light of recent events, I would like to make a mildly opinionated post regarding the lack of gun control in the United States. This morning, at Umpqua Community College in southern Oregon, at least 13 civilians were killed and 20 were wounded. 

Today in the White House Press Briefing Room, President Obama spoke out on the subject: "Each time this happens I’m going to bring this up. Each time this happens I am going to say we can actually do something about it. But we’re going to have to change our laws… I hope and pray I don’t have to come out again during my time as president to offer my condolences." However, time and time again, changes in legislature have been discussed and actions have not been taken. Obama also has said that "At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn't happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it" (Smith-Spark). One of the advanced countries that Mr. Obama was referring to in the above quote was Australia, where Prime Minister John Howard announced a nationwide gun law reform. As a result of this advancement, the probability of dying by means of a gunshot was reduced by 50%, a statistic which should really drive home the fact that with the easy availability of guns, violence is inevitable.

The American people know that gun violence is an epidemic: "Ever since the shootings at Columbine High School, in a Denver suburb, in 1999, American schools have been preparing for gunmen" (Lepore). However, it should not be the public school system's responsibility to prepare for massacres. It should be the government's responsibility to remove potential gunmen's resources. According to The New Yorker, there are nearly 300,000,000 (yes, three hundred million) privately owned firearms, 106,000,000 handguns, 105,000,000 rifles, and 83,000,000 shotguns. These statistics put the United States in first place worldwide for the largest amount of privately owned guns, followed by Yemen, where the amount is half of America's.

To drive the message home, I would like to highlight the fact that there have been 142 school shootings since the tragic massacre at Sandy Hook. Those 142 times could have been prevented, had stronger gun laws been implemented in this country sooner. It is time for change.

I leave you with a couple of questions on the matter:

1. What can America do to mirror Australia's methods of limiting gun accessibility?
2. Should there be requirements for gun ownership? If so, what should they be?

http://www.nytimes.com/live/shooting-at-umpqua-community-college/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/1/142-school-shootings-sandy-hook-massacre-newtown-c/

http://www.nytimes.com/live/shooting-at-umpqua-community-college/obama-gun-laws-need-to-change

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/04/23/battleground-america

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/world/us-australia-gun-control/

Biden Continues to Hold Out; Plans to Skip First Democratic Debate

As the first Democratic debate approached on October 13, current Vice President Joe Biden still has not decided if he will be running in the 2016 presidential election. He has been waiting to let things play out before he makes a definite decision, because he only wants to run if he knows he will for sure win. For this reason, he and his team have been loaded with tons of research and strategic plans that have made it difficult for him to come to a conclusion. Biden is also struggling with whether he and his family are ready for the rigors of a campaign after the recent death of his oldest son.

Even though he has not declared that he will be running, Biden still has a substantial voting base already. This base is led by Democrats who are yearning for an alternative to Hillary Clinton, especially after recent developments on her personal emails. Many believed that this push would certainly cause Biden to declare, but he continues to hold off on a decision. However, he seems to be gaining momentum each day that may result in a decision to run in mid-October. Although Biden seems comfortable taking his time, many wonder if it is becoming too late for him to make his decision. Many Democrats are hoping for him to enter the race, but are slowly losing hope. At this point, no one knows what Biden will do, but whatever his decision may be will undoubtedly shake up the Democratic race.

What do you think? Will Biden end up deciding to run for President or not and how will this affect the Democratic race? Do you think he will have a chance to win the election considering he has held out for so long? Or do you think his indecisiveness has attracted voters' attention while they become sick of Hillary Clinton?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/10/01/us/politics/ap-us-dem-2016-biden.html

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/01/politics/biden-clinton-2016-democratic-debate/index.html

Hillary Still Holding Strong - Sanders Making Bank

Despite the recent rise of Bernie Sanders in the current political meta game, a poll conducted by CNN and ORC shows that Hillary Clinton is still holding strong with an 18 point lead in the Democratic race. Other candidates in the race, including Lincoln Chafee, Jim Webb and Martin O'Malley seem to be lacking the appeal of the American people. This is especially evident in Sander's state of Vermont, as demonstrated in a poll by Suffolk and USA Today. Within this poll, all three candidates hold less than 2%  of the combined support in the state. On the other hand Clinton continues to demonstrate good numbers with 43% support in the state, while Sanders only comes in at a surprising 23% support. Additionally, even though the race is far from over and only points to signs of increased competition, the poll conducted by CNN put forth that 54% of those surveyed would not be in favour of more Democratic debates. Which in reality, oddly contradicts the state of the race at present.

One bright spot for Sanders came in the third-quarter of campaign fundraising, in which he out-raised Hillary by $3 million, netting $28 million total. At this pace, Sanders is due to beat the collections of President Obama in both the 2008 and 2012 elections, as he has had almost twice the amount of contributes compared to President Obama at this point in the race. Unfortunately for Sanders, he still lags behind Hillary, as Sanders lacks Super PAC, in total donations and is no where near the total of what the President earned in his 2007 campaign. However, supporters of Sanders understand that the situation could have been much worse than it is now and there is much opportunity within the race.

The CNN/Orc Poll conducted was executed between the dates of September 24th and September 28th, surveying 1,000 voters with 430 from the Democratic primary.

Ultimately, despite the continued rise of Sanders, Hillary seems to be chugging along, gaining superiority in Vermont and across the entire country all the while. If Sanders wishes to come out on top, he will certainly need a comprehensive course of action. What does Sanders have to do to catch up with Hillary? Does success correlate to his increased fundraising? What does Hillary need to do to stay ahead?


http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/01/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-poll/index.html

http://time.com/4058075/bernie-sanders-fundraising-hillary-clinton-barack-obama/

http://img.ccrd.clearchannel.com/media/mlib/15172/2015/08/default/hillary_sanders_0_1439284535.jpg

Scott Walker Drops Out of the Presidential Race

Scott Walker, a Wisconsin governor, announced on Monday, September 28th that he would be dropping out of the 2016 Presidential Race. In his resignation speech he stated that his reason was because he wanted the number of Republican candidates to decrease so that people are able to focus more attention on who will give them a positive conservative message, instead of recognizing the current front runner: Donald Trump. He encouraged the other candidates to follow suit.

His resignation came out just days after a CNN poll which put him at less than 1%. An insider states that this was a major factor in his decision to pull out of the race. This was a drastic drop from when he first entered the race in July. Originally he was a front runner in Iowa and donors and people from the conservative base. During the first primary debate on Fox he was actually ranked third following Trump and Bush. 

Walker is said to have made the "Pawlenty" decision, this means that he resigned before gaining too much debt. In fact, many were not surprised at his decision, and say that he made the smart choice for his position. 

A major reason for the decline in his poll ratings comes from his debate performance, which were not up to par. He failed to make and impact and display his ideas clearly to his audience. He would give different responses to the same question; for instance he gave three separate responses to his policy on birthright citizenship with in seven days. The voters were displeased with these inconsistencies which consumed his policies. After the CNN debate Walker was losing support in Iowa, which was the final nail in the coffin. He depended on Iowa, and with out it there seemed to be no clear path to the presidency. 

What impact do you think Walker dropping out with have on the rest of the Republican candidates? Will more follow suit? And for what reasons do you think they will make this decision?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34317758

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/05/fox-news-announces-candidate-line-up-for-prime-time-debate/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/21/politics/scott-walker-drops-out-2016-election/