Dems: a Party of the Rich

The Washington Times

While its true the that Democratic party started as one that represents the lower and middle class Americans, the fact that it now represents richer households has nothing to do with a change in the interests of the Democratic party. I think that more so, it represents a change in interest of the wealthiest people. It's comparable to the majority of celebrities who choose the democratic party. The issues that the Democratic party supports attracts those with money because those kinds of people want to help out the poorer to lower class citizens, thus they choose to support the Democratic party. I think that this is the same idea that makes Democrats represent a richer majority.

YOUTUBE = YOU CHOOSE!

youtube

I was recently procrastinating and surfing youtube.com when I decided to be adventurous and scroll to the bottom of the page. And to my complete amazement, I found a link that said, "Face the Candidates." I clicked on it, and I found video links to each major Presidential candidate as well as videos to their positions on the most heated issues of the '08 debate. My first reaction was excitement.. I was happy to see that such a popular website was doing something to support the race, and furthermore support voting in the next year's election. In my eyes, it was doing its part to support America. But then, I had second thoughts. It frustrated me to see that the link to this was at the bottom of the page, next to the search button. Why it wasn't at the top next to the other search button bothered me. More depressing was the number of views some of the videos have. Rudy Giuliani's video on education had just a mere 5,000 views. Avril Lavigne's music video, "Girlfriend," is at 62 million. It's disappointing to see that first, youtube.com has put the link in a place that a majority of site visitors don't look, and second, that the American youth have shown little interest in this race for the White House

Why African Americans prefer Clinton to Obama

According to a recent poll, Clinton has a 15 point lead over Obama when it comes to votes from Black women. African Americans in the past have appreciated and supported Bill Clinton, and agreed with his policies. So it's no surprise that their loyalty lies with the Clinton family, except in regards to Obama, who is the first chance to have a Black president in office. " She looks like she has a much stronger chance of getting the nomination and getting elected than Obama. You want to go with the winner, and if that's a woman as opposed to someone black, then you want to go with them," said Newsday columnist McCarthy. However, Obama plans to combat Clinton's popularity by using Oprah Winfrey's support, who has vocally said that she supports him. It will be interesting to see how Blacks vote this time around; will they vote for Clinton who has always remained faithful and loyal to African Americans, or will they vote for Obama and finally see a Black president?

Is Hillary Pulliing the Gender Card?

Hit-and-Miss Hillary

As much as either side flip flops on whether this Presidential race is based on gender, it is. I think its a huge factor. And I do think that each side, Republican, Democratic, Male or Female is going to play off of it because Hillary can choose to use it to her advantage to attract the female voters. It also plays a big role to the candidates because they know that the American population is attracted to the idea of a female president, and furthermore, a female candidate grabs peaks the interest of the voters and will attract more attention to her campaign, giving her more publicity and therefore a bigger edge.

what $611 billion can buy

FREE GAS FOR EVERYONE

So pretty much, after reading that President Bush vetoed a bill for $600 billion that was to be spent on health and labor, I found this article that showed how much $611 billion could actually buy. $611 billion is the amount they expect the Iraq war to cost. These are the most interesting ones:

"More than a year's worth of Medicare benefits for everyone:

In fiscal 2008, Medicare benefits will total $454 billion, according to a Heritage Foundation summary. The $611 billion in war costs is 17 times the amount vetoed by the president for a $35 billion health benefit program for poor children."

"A real war on poverty

According to World Bank estimates, $54 billion a year would eliminate starvation and malnutrition globally by 2015, while $30 billion would provide a year of primary education for every child on earth.

At the upper range of those estimates, the $611 billion cost of the war could have fed and educated the world's poor for seven years."

The things Bush could have done for Humanity.

Star Wars is BACK

FALCON

According to the article, the Defense Bill that was mentioned in yesterday's blog post, is being put toward what I see as a revamping or rebirth of Reagan's Star Wars program. Apparently, the new program called FALCON, Force Application and Launch from CONUS, will be able to hit any target in the world within 2 hours. I'm glad that Bush has decided that this is something worth investing in over the education of America's civilians.

Bush Veto

the washington post article

President Bush vetoed a $606 billion funding bill that would have supported education, health care and labor programs. Democrats believe that this is not a spending issue, but rather a political move by Bush to show up the Democratic majority in the House. However, at the same time he also signed a bill that gave $459 billion to the Defense department and the Pentagon. While I understand that the war in Iraq is one of the most pressing issues in the political agenda, I also believe that Bush needs to focus more on the future of America after Iraq. The post-Iraq war time is closing in, and Bush has repeatedly used money on defense. He needs to find a balance and use it as a way to satisfy the Democrats in Congress