Decision Making Time for the U.S. National Government

Our U.S. nation government is needs to make some tough decisions regarding the Afghanistan and Iraq eight-year war, and they need to make these decisions thoroughly, but quickly too. Recently there have been many controversies about this eight-year war that is continuing in Afghanistan and there are many unanswered questions, there are many concerns, and basically the decision making process is very difficult right now. Whether or not to send more troops over is an obvious question, but the difficult question is whether or not this is going to help the troops there now. It easily might not work, but it also could easily work.

Since October is being labeled the deadliest month in this war, the U.S. government needs to do something about it. Should they send more troops over to protect certain cities, regional highways and the Helmand River valley? I think not. This decision is a tossup and I honestly don’t think it’s a good idea and I don’t think it will work or help. If President Obama agrees to send more troops over, it could possibly lead to more and more deaths and it could possibly extend the war way longer then we need it to. The argument President Obama’s advisers are making is if we don’t send more troops, then more people will die. But, wouldn’t it only make sense if we sent more people over that there is a greater chance that our soldiers will get hurt and possibly die, because we’re now giving Afghanistan troops a larger target.

They key that our U.S. government needs to take into considerations is by keeping our troops best interest in mind. As well as really thinking about if our country needs this. I think we don’t need this at all. We need to protect our troops and soldiers. Even though they want to send these new troops to these specific cities in Afghanistan, we can still do that now with our remaining troops over there. We do not need back up or any more troops to be sent. And if we don’t send troops over there it is going to save more people as well as having the remaining troops over there fight it out, and a major factor is that it will save the U.S. money.

This is a huge gamble our government has to take and I think they’re really going to screw up things if they send more troops. The outcome is unpredictable and it is a choice the government has to make. I hope they make the right choice by not sending more troops over so we can end this war as soon as possible.

In the LA times this editorial the price of overdraft protection it is basically saying that those who cannot keep up with the amount of money in their account should be warned before they overdraft in their account. Now, I am not saying that the overdraft fees aren’t expensive, because they certainly are. I am saying that I think it is irresponsible that people cannot keep track of their bank account statements. Therefore, those people shouldn’t be notified before they are about to overdraft. Towards the end of the editorial it is explaining that in order to avoid an overdraft fee, they would have to make a merchant check the bank authorization before approving or declining the debit card so that person can cancel the transaction if there is not enough money. So if that were to happen and the system were to change and make that a rule, it is definitely encouraging fraud. I do not think a merchant should have to approve the costumer’s bank statement before the purchase regardless if it will overdraft or not. There are other solutions to this overdraft problem, for example, some banks offer a “way to save” account. This type account is formed every time someone’s card it swiped, which means every time someone makes a purchase it takes one dollar out of that account and into your way to save account. And, over time this account adds up dramatically so that it will help prevent those overdrafts. So, when you have an overdraft that is about to occur and you don’t know it, it will automatically pull from the way to save account to protect you from having an overdraft overall. I think this is an excellent solution that will be able to help people manage their money more. I do not agree that other people should check your bank statement before using your card, because that is just a lazy way to have someone else help you manage your money and tell you when and when not to use your debit card. If everyone could get an account like the way to save then this would not be considered borrowing money without knowing it, and I think it would be a huge success for banks and their customers overall.

Blog stage 2:
The 3 R’s: Responsibility, respect, restraint was the editorial published in The Miami Herald on Wednesday September 23, 2009. This editorial is about violence in schools and what leads to it. It is asking who we should get involved to lower the crime rate in school, and who we should blame on responsibility for those children. First I think it is to no blame of the parents, this is because a lot of kids do drugs or commit crime to get attention or to get accepted from their peers, which is also known as peer pressure. I don’t think the crime rate in schools has anything to do with what the kids watch on television, or what video games they play, or with what they see on the internet. I believe it’s because of who they choose to surround themselves with. The editorial talks about a stabbing at one of the schools in south Florida, but there was a stabbing at the high school I attended and there was no security or metal detectors added and there shouldn’t be. Also I do understand that these crimes happening in these schools are not ok, but I do not believe that prayer or anything of the sort should be added. I do completely agree that if a kid was to know about someone having a gun or a knife, that they should report it. Overall, I think the schools should make some changes if a crime were to happen at that specific school, but nothing drastic, and especially nothing for those schools that have had no crime at all.