Terrorism is not new, and even though it has been used since the beginning of recorded history it can be relatively hard to define. Terrorism has been described variously as both a tactic and strategy; a crime and a holy duty; a justified reaction to oppression and an inexcusable abomination. Obviously, a lot depends on whose point of view is being represented. Terrorism has often been an effective tactic for the weaker side in a conflict. That is why preemption is being considered to be so important. In some cases, terrorism has been a means to carry on a conflict without the adversary realizing the nature of the threat, mistaking terrorism for criminal activity. Because of these characteristics, terrorism has become increasingly common among those pursuing extreme goals throughout the world. But despite its popularity, terrorism can be a nebulous concept. Even within the U.S. Government, agencies responsible for different functions in the ongoing fight against terrorism use different definitions.
The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” Within this definition, there are three key elements—violence, fear, and intimidation—and each element produces terror in its victims. The FBI uses this: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." The U.S. Department of State defines "terrorism" to be "premeditated politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. Outside the United States Government, there are greater variations in what features of terrorism are emphasized in definitions. The United Nations produced this definition in 1992; "An anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets." The most commonly accepted academic definition starts with the U.N. definition quoted above, and adds two sentences totaling another 77 words on the end; containing such verbose concepts as "message generators" and 'violence based communication processes." Less specific and considerably less verbose, the British Government definition of 1974 is"…the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public, or any section of the public, in fear." Terrorism is a criminal act that influences an audience beyond the immediate victim. The strategy of terrorists is to commit acts of violence that .draws the attention of the local populace, the government, and the world to their cause. The terrorists plan their attack to obtain the greatest publicity, choosing targets that symbolize what they oppose. The effectiveness of the terrorist act lies not in the act itself, but in the public’s or government’s reaction to the act. There are three perspectives of terrorism: the terrorist’s, the victim’s, and the general public’s. The phrase “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is a view terrorists themselves would accept. Terrorists do not see themselves as evil. They believe they are legitimate combatants, fighting for what they believe in, by whatever means possible. A victim of a terrorist act sees the terrorist as a criminal with no regard for human life. The general public’s view is the most unstable. The terrorists take great pains to foster a “Robin Hood” image in hope of swaying the general public’s point of view toward their cause. This sympathetic view of terrorism has become an integral part of their psychological warfare and needs to be countered vigorously.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
$700B US bailout plan Vs $87.5B UK bailout Plan
With the bankruptcy of Lehman brothers and other major stock holders in September 2008, The US and the UK government made a plan to resolve and save other banking companies.
The 700 Billion dollar bailout is a rescue plan for the US Financial system. Its purpose is to use the 700 billion dollars for two years to buy their distressed bonds to stabilize their economy. However the US government would use taxpayer’s money. In result, According to www.timesonlines.com (2008), the bailout will cost every American taxpayer $5,354. But still, financiers fear that the plan will not be sufficient and it will only cause a financial meltdown.
Americans will have to suffer the rise in taxes. They fear that the plan will not work and would only cause more problems. But the government hopes that after their market recovers, it will return some of the money that was used in the bailout.
The 87.5 Billion dollar or 50 Billion pound UK Bailout serves a different purpose than the US bailout. Its purpose is to build the confidence in banking companies by injecting money in banks as indicated on www.cnn.com (2008). Some of the profit earned will be returned to the government. UK Government planned this to limit the effects of the financial crisis. They will have to borrow money but it is yet unclear whether they will take actions to raise taxes.
Their taxpayers are not likely to be affected by this plan because the government will use their own money to gain profit from it, unlike the US bailout where they use taxpayer’s money to pay up for the bad debts of struggling banks.
Sources:
- http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article4907530.ece
- http://www.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/10/08/uk.bailout.questions/index.html?eref=rss_latest
- http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article4907530.ece
- http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article4821160.ece
- yuri
US Bailout vs UK Bailout
Many banks in US and UK are getting tide up with problems regarding money and some of these banks are already bankrupt. That’s why the US and UK government sets out the bailout to stabilized the banks.
According to Times Online dated October 8, 2008, many banks in US are forced into distressed sales this year because of the billions of dollars of bonds that they have and the size of their investments are too large that it threatens to bankrupt them. Because of this Mr. Paulson, the Treasury secretary, wants to have the bailout to help these banks. This bailout contains $700 billion taxpayers’ money. Its purpose is to buy the distress bonds. Mr. Paulson also proposes to put them into federal-bucked fund, which will be controlled by the Treasury.
In UK according to BBC News Channel dated October 8, 2008, the UK bailout will initially make extra capital to the banks. The Prime Minister said that, it is also designed to put the British banking system on a sounder footing. It contains 400bn so that banks will have to increase their capital by at least 25bn.
According to CNN.com/world business dated October 8, 2008, not like the US $700 billion bailout it does not recapitalize the banks in return for a share holding on which taxpayers could see a return. Instead, its main aim is to purchase all the bad debt held by the banks and make money from that over time. The risks to U.S. taxpayers are perceived as being greater.
These bailouts have short and long term effects. In US, according to Times Online dated September 25, 2008, for now maybe once the market recover the fund can sell the bonds back into the market and claw back some of the $700 billion. According to Poltenson in Business Journal dated October 10, 2008, maybe after a long period of time the taxpayers will be angry. Tax rates will double and the government could eliminate every other federal program, including defense and education; or run massive budget deficits that, in time, will strangle the economy.
In UK, according to CNN.com/world business dated October 8, 2008, for now the banks are happy because they have been clamoring for extra cash to shore up their balance sheets following the runs on their share prices. But after a period of time if shares prices continue to slide the tax payer loses out. Moreover, if the banks take up all of the government's latest lending and can't pay it back the financial hangover could last for decades. If banks don't start lending again to each other and, just as importantly, customers, a deep recession is inevitable.
Sources:
1. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/
2. http://www.businessjournal.com/
3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/
4. http://edition.cnn.com/BUSINESS/
According to Times Online dated October 8, 2008, many banks in US are forced into distressed sales this year because of the billions of dollars of bonds that they have and the size of their investments are too large that it threatens to bankrupt them. Because of this Mr. Paulson, the Treasury secretary, wants to have the bailout to help these banks. This bailout contains $700 billion taxpayers’ money. Its purpose is to buy the distress bonds. Mr. Paulson also proposes to put them into federal-bucked fund, which will be controlled by the Treasury.
In UK according to BBC News Channel dated October 8, 2008, the UK bailout will initially make extra capital to the banks. The Prime Minister said that, it is also designed to put the British banking system on a sounder footing. It contains 400bn so that banks will have to increase their capital by at least 25bn.
According to CNN.com/world business dated October 8, 2008, not like the US $700 billion bailout it does not recapitalize the banks in return for a share holding on which taxpayers could see a return. Instead, its main aim is to purchase all the bad debt held by the banks and make money from that over time. The risks to U.S. taxpayers are perceived as being greater.
These bailouts have short and long term effects. In US, according to Times Online dated September 25, 2008, for now maybe once the market recover the fund can sell the bonds back into the market and claw back some of the $700 billion. According to Poltenson in Business Journal dated October 10, 2008, maybe after a long period of time the taxpayers will be angry. Tax rates will double and the government could eliminate every other federal program, including defense and education; or run massive budget deficits that, in time, will strangle the economy.
In UK, according to CNN.com/world business dated October 8, 2008, for now the banks are happy because they have been clamoring for extra cash to shore up their balance sheets following the runs on their share prices. But after a period of time if shares prices continue to slide the tax payer loses out. Moreover, if the banks take up all of the government's latest lending and can't pay it back the financial hangover could last for decades. If banks don't start lending again to each other and, just as importantly, customers, a deep recession is inevitable.
Sources:
1. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/
2. http://www.businessjournal.com/
3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/
4. http://edition.cnn.com/BUSINESS/
John McCain vs Barack Obama as Likely US President
Ever since the start of the presidential campaigns, the favorites to become president have been McCain and Obama. Even now, their battle for presidency is still quite close. All of the help from each of their supporters, all the ad campaigns, all their speeches, are very, very crucial in helping them achieve presidency. All of their works leave one question in mind, who will be the next
First off, let’s look at their backgrounds. As stated in Wikipedia, Obama was born on August 4, 1981, in
Sources:
www.barackobama.com
www.johnmccain.com
www.wikipedia.org
www.about.com
US $700B Bailout VS UK $87.5B Bailout
US $700B bailout VS UK 87.5B bailout
The US $700B and the UK 87.5B bailout is a rescue plan to establish a toxic debt dumpster to purge the banks of bad depts or to help purge bad assets from the banking sector, that will cost the government hundreds of billion dollars.
The Philippines daily inquirer (September 22, 2008) speaks that the US $700B bailout is the largest rescue since 1928 crash. The Bush administration has asked Congress for authority to buy $700 billion in toxic assets clogging the US financial system and threatening the economy as negations began on the largest bailout since the great depression.
This kind of financial crisis has many effects, not only to one person but to all. One huge concern is that the Lehman bankruptcy will probably trigger even tighter credit’s making it more difficult for everyone from large companies to small businesses to American home buyers to borrow money. And Pres. Bush said that people are beginning to doubt in our system, people were losing confidence in our financial system, it is so hard to get back peoples trust in ones company that has been failed.
Distressed banks and financial institutions in the United States might decide to pull out their investments in emerging economies as a way to boost liquidity. The market’s mood has shifted from panic to euphoria as the financial froze up. There were also worries that Lehman’s problems would infect other financial companies and spread to global stock markets, further harming the US and global economies.
Sources:
- Philippine Daily Inquirer (Sunday, Sept. 21, 2008/ 17 sections/vol.23/no.288)
- Philippine Daily Inquirer (Wednesday,Sept.17,2008/8 sections/vol.23/no.284)
- Philippine Daily Inquirer (Monday, Sept. 22,2008/13 sections/vol.23/no.289)
The US $700B and the UK 87.5B bailout is a rescue plan to establish a toxic debt dumpster to purge the banks of bad depts or to help purge bad assets from the banking sector, that will cost the government hundreds of billion dollars.
The Philippines daily inquirer (September 22, 2008) speaks that the US $700B bailout is the largest rescue since 1928 crash. The Bush administration has asked Congress for authority to buy $700 billion in toxic assets clogging the US financial system and threatening the economy as negations began on the largest bailout since the great depression.
This kind of financial crisis has many effects, not only to one person but to all. One huge concern is that the Lehman bankruptcy will probably trigger even tighter credit’s making it more difficult for everyone from large companies to small businesses to American home buyers to borrow money. And Pres. Bush said that people are beginning to doubt in our system, people were losing confidence in our financial system, it is so hard to get back peoples trust in ones company that has been failed.
Distressed banks and financial institutions in the United States might decide to pull out their investments in emerging economies as a way to boost liquidity. The market’s mood has shifted from panic to euphoria as the financial froze up. There were also worries that Lehman’s problems would infect other financial companies and spread to global stock markets, further harming the US and global economies.
Sources:
- Philippine Daily Inquirer (Sunday, Sept. 21, 2008/ 17 sections/vol.23/no.288)
- Philippine Daily Inquirer (Wednesday,Sept.17,2008/8 sections/vol.23/no.284)
- Philippine Daily Inquirer (Monday, Sept. 22,2008/13 sections/vol.23/no.289)
US $700 Billion Bailout VS UK 87.5 Billion Bailout
Bailout is the injection of liquidity to failing companies for them to survive. Most of the time, bailouts are done if the company is too large, and having it bankrupt may affect other firms and the country as a whole. In short, it is a preventive measure done by the government to avoid a “ripple effect” that may cause chain reaction to other firms and establishments as well. Nowadays, economic crisis starts to be serious; US and UK are having to have bailouts. What are the differences of these two?
Guo (2008) in his article said that, US bailout plan is to take bad debts off the books of the banks, thus freeing up from credit markets. On the other hand, Boyle (2008), in her article, said that UK differs from US bailout plan because UK’s bailout only lends money to the banks in order to increase their confidence level because the “giant banks” such as the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and HBOS are being reluctant to lend money to each other due to the credit crunch happening today. With UK’s bailout, this banks will gain confidence and will result to cash flowing systems again. The big difference between the two is that US' plan is too risky because its only aim is to purchase all bad debts by the banks and make money overtime. Because of this, UK’s bailout will be most likely to be implemented compare to US’ bailout plan.
After all the news about the US and the Uk bailout, there have been some analysis about its effects on the future. Will it really help? Will the bailout benefit the people? Or will it be a cause of a larger economic crisis?
One of the short term effects of bailout is that banks and business establishments that gained from the bailout will have confidence boost and its employees and staff will remain; thus preventing them to be bankrupt for the next few years. It can solve the economic crisis or not. Another possible effect, especially if the bailout failed, would be money markets remain frozen and more problems will arise from it (ripple effect).
An example of a long term effect, on the other hand, is when banks share prices rebound; the result would be the government could sell the profit. Because of that the government will receive dividends on shares and income from the extra lending it is providing.
In conclusion, the US bailout plan will have less support because of the risks it have, in contrast, Uk bailout will have more support in it because taxpayers are more ensured and it only aims to boost confidence level among banks and not purchase its bad debts. Our country, the Philippines are most likely to be affected, likewise, companies cutting out its staff and employees and a decline to our economy is to be expected.
Sources:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/10/08/uk.bailout.questions/index.htm
Q&A: the UK bank bailout explained by:Catherine Boyle
Q&A: US $700bn bail-out plan Editor: Eve Guo
http://www.wisegeek.com/in-economics-what-is-a-bailout.htm
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/10/09/world.markets/index.html
Guo (2008) in his article said that, US bailout plan is to take bad debts off the books of the banks, thus freeing up from credit markets. On the other hand, Boyle (2008), in her article, said that UK differs from US bailout plan because UK’s bailout only lends money to the banks in order to increase their confidence level because the “giant banks” such as the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and HBOS are being reluctant to lend money to each other due to the credit crunch happening today. With UK’s bailout, this banks will gain confidence and will result to cash flowing systems again. The big difference between the two is that US' plan is too risky because its only aim is to purchase all bad debts by the banks and make money overtime. Because of this, UK’s bailout will be most likely to be implemented compare to US’ bailout plan.
After all the news about the US and the Uk bailout, there have been some analysis about its effects on the future. Will it really help? Will the bailout benefit the people? Or will it be a cause of a larger economic crisis?
One of the short term effects of bailout is that banks and business establishments that gained from the bailout will have confidence boost and its employees and staff will remain; thus preventing them to be bankrupt for the next few years. It can solve the economic crisis or not. Another possible effect, especially if the bailout failed, would be money markets remain frozen and more problems will arise from it (ripple effect).
An example of a long term effect, on the other hand, is when banks share prices rebound; the result would be the government could sell the profit. Because of that the government will receive dividends on shares and income from the extra lending it is providing.
In conclusion, the US bailout plan will have less support because of the risks it have, in contrast, Uk bailout will have more support in it because taxpayers are more ensured and it only aims to boost confidence level among banks and not purchase its bad debts. Our country, the Philippines are most likely to be affected, likewise, companies cutting out its staff and employees and a decline to our economy is to be expected.
Sources:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/10/08/uk.bailout.questions/index.htm
Q&A: the UK bank bailout explained by:Catherine Boyle
Q&A: US $700bn bail-out plan Editor: Eve Guo
http://www.wisegeek.com/in-economics-what-is-a-bailout.htm
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/10/09/world.markets/index.html
John Mccain vs. Barrack Obama
The two major party presidential candidates in the US, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain. Both Barack Obama and John McCain attract independents. Both have a candor that appeals to voters and media-types alike. Both ask their audiences to serve a cause greater than self-interest. Both offer a politics that is grand and inspiring. But they are very different men. Their policies obviously conflict, but their skills, world views and moral philosophies set them apart, too. One man celebrates communitarian virtues like unity, the other classical virtues like honor.(David Brooks:2008)
Brief historical background
John Sidney McCain III (born August 29, 1936) is the senior United States Senator from Arizona and presidential nominee of the Republican Party in the 2008 presidential election.McCain graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1958. He became a naval aviator, flying ground-attack aircraft from aircraft carriers.
McCain lost his bid for the Republican nomination in the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush. He ran again for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, and gained enough delegates to become the party's presumptive nominee in March 2008. McCain was formally nominated at the 2008 Republican National Convention in September 2008, together with his chosen running mate from Alaska, Governor Sarah Palin.
On the other hand,Barack Hussein Obama II(born August 4, 1961) is the junior United States Senator from Illinois and presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in the 2008 general election.Obama is the first African American to be nominated by a major political party for president. A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review, Obama worked as a community organizer and practiced as a civil rights attorney before serving three terms in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004.
After announcing his presidential campaign in February 2007, Obama emphasized withdrawing American troops from Iraq, energy independence, decreasing the influence of lobbyists, and promoting universal health care as top national priorities.
Personal Attributes
Six months before the general election, public perceptions of the relative strengths and weaknesses of presumptive Republican nominee John McCain and Democratic front-runner Barack Obama are relatively static, though recent shifts on leadership, empathy and personal ethics hint at the battles to come. The two months of campaigning in the time since we last checked in on perceptions of these two candidates have done little to change minds.
In comparing McCain and Obama on eight key candidate attributes in the new Washington Post-ABC News poll, McCain continues to be seen as the more experienced candidate and the one with better knowledge of world affairs, while Obama is broadly seen as the one who would do more to affect change, with the better personality for the job and with a clearer vision for the future.
McCain's progress on empathy comes largely from bringing Republicans back into the fold, in March, 55 percent of Republicans said he was the candidate who better understands their problems; now 66 percent do.And on personal and ethical standards, more than one in five partisans are "cross-overs," choosing the other party's standard bearer as the one with higher standards. Obama cedes more than a third of Clinton supporters on this question, while McCain surrenders a quarter of conservatives.
Health Care
John McCain Believes The Key To Health Care Reform Is To Restore Control To The Patients Themselves. We want a system of health care in which everyone can afford and acquire the treatment and preventative care they need. Health care should be available to all and not limited by where you work or how much you make. Families should be in charge of their health care dollars and have more control over care.
To Make Health Insurance Innovative, Portable and Affordable, John McCain Will Reform Health Care Making It Easier For Individuals And Families To Obtain Insurance. He will Reform The Tax Code To Offer More Choices Beyond Employer-Based Health Insurance Coverage. He Proposed to make Insurance More Portable.
While Obama-Biden planned to provide affordable, accessible health care for all Americans, builds on the existing health care system, and uses existing providers, doctors and plans to implement the plan. Under the Obama-Biden plan, patients will be able to make health care decisions with their doctors, instead of being blocked by insurance company bureaucrats.
He wanted to make Health Insurance Work for People and Businesses - Not Just Insurance and Drug Companies.The Obama-Biden plan will promote public health. It will require coverage of preventive services, including cancer screenings, and increase state and local preparedness for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
Security Jobs:
McCain calls for new reforms throughout the Federal Government. It is one of his many priorities. Thus, it is not strange for him to want to reform the Unemployment Insurance (UI) System. In his economic plan, McCain proposes the following reforms to bolster job security and assist displayed workers in America:
John McCain Believes We Should Have A Single, Seamless Approach To Job Transition Assistance. Workers will have access to a flexible training account that permits them to pay for training at a community college and use leftover funds to keep their health insurance.John McCain Will Provide Special, Targeted Assistance For Older Workers. Because training is often inefficient for older workers, those 55 years of age and older who have built up an LEB will be eligible for a Lost Earnings Supplement.
On the other hand, Sen. Barack Obama delivered an unusual and inspiring campaign speech in which he outlined specific, outside-the-box plans to address the extreme financial challenges facing middle-class Americans.
Among the specific interesting points in Barack Obama's Agenda to Reclaim the American Dream were: Middle class tax cuts of up to $1,000 for working families. Guaranteed paid sick days for workers and expand the Family and Medical Leave Act. Help Americans buy and keep their homes. Reforming bankruptcy laws, predatory credit card policies, and abusive payday lending practices. Reduce health care costs by $2,500 for a typical family. Provide a $4,000 refundable tax credit for college tuition.
Terrorism
McCain primarily identifies terrorism with "violent Islamist extremism," especially as manifested in Al Qaeda. McCain believes Al Qaeda continues to represent a significant threat to U.S. security. His solution includes ensuring quality intelligence, being protected against attack and being able to respond to an attack quickly. Our homeland security plans must also consider threats posed by major accidents, or nature itself. In each instance, John McCain’s strategy is to prevent those incidents we can, prepare for and respond to disasters of all kinds, and improve the recovery process for disaster victims.
On Obama’s part, He funneled many of his comments about the "war on terrorism" through his concerns with human and civil rights issues that it has raised. His campaign website establishes both small weapons proliferation and potential nuclear terrorism as significant U.S. priorities.
He joined critique of the bill's suspension of habeas corpus for potentially innocent detainees with the accusation that the government was not addressing the actual issues.
References:
http.//johnmccain.com
http.//www.nowpublic.com
http.//en.wikipedia.org/wiki.com
http.//barrackobama.com
Brief historical background
John Sidney McCain III (born August 29, 1936) is the senior United States Senator from Arizona and presidential nominee of the Republican Party in the 2008 presidential election.McCain graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1958. He became a naval aviator, flying ground-attack aircraft from aircraft carriers.
McCain lost his bid for the Republican nomination in the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush. He ran again for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, and gained enough delegates to become the party's presumptive nominee in March 2008. McCain was formally nominated at the 2008 Republican National Convention in September 2008, together with his chosen running mate from Alaska, Governor Sarah Palin.
On the other hand,Barack Hussein Obama II(born August 4, 1961) is the junior United States Senator from Illinois and presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in the 2008 general election.Obama is the first African American to be nominated by a major political party for president. A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review, Obama worked as a community organizer and practiced as a civil rights attorney before serving three terms in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004.
After announcing his presidential campaign in February 2007, Obama emphasized withdrawing American troops from Iraq, energy independence, decreasing the influence of lobbyists, and promoting universal health care as top national priorities.
Personal Attributes
Six months before the general election, public perceptions of the relative strengths and weaknesses of presumptive Republican nominee John McCain and Democratic front-runner Barack Obama are relatively static, though recent shifts on leadership, empathy and personal ethics hint at the battles to come. The two months of campaigning in the time since we last checked in on perceptions of these two candidates have done little to change minds.
In comparing McCain and Obama on eight key candidate attributes in the new Washington Post-ABC News poll, McCain continues to be seen as the more experienced candidate and the one with better knowledge of world affairs, while Obama is broadly seen as the one who would do more to affect change, with the better personality for the job and with a clearer vision for the future.
McCain's progress on empathy comes largely from bringing Republicans back into the fold, in March, 55 percent of Republicans said he was the candidate who better understands their problems; now 66 percent do.And on personal and ethical standards, more than one in five partisans are "cross-overs," choosing the other party's standard bearer as the one with higher standards. Obama cedes more than a third of Clinton supporters on this question, while McCain surrenders a quarter of conservatives.
Health Care
John McCain Believes The Key To Health Care Reform Is To Restore Control To The Patients Themselves. We want a system of health care in which everyone can afford and acquire the treatment and preventative care they need. Health care should be available to all and not limited by where you work or how much you make. Families should be in charge of their health care dollars and have more control over care.
To Make Health Insurance Innovative, Portable and Affordable, John McCain Will Reform Health Care Making It Easier For Individuals And Families To Obtain Insurance. He will Reform The Tax Code To Offer More Choices Beyond Employer-Based Health Insurance Coverage. He Proposed to make Insurance More Portable.
While Obama-Biden planned to provide affordable, accessible health care for all Americans, builds on the existing health care system, and uses existing providers, doctors and plans to implement the plan. Under the Obama-Biden plan, patients will be able to make health care decisions with their doctors, instead of being blocked by insurance company bureaucrats.
He wanted to make Health Insurance Work for People and Businesses - Not Just Insurance and Drug Companies.The Obama-Biden plan will promote public health. It will require coverage of preventive services, including cancer screenings, and increase state and local preparedness for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
Security Jobs:
McCain calls for new reforms throughout the Federal Government. It is one of his many priorities. Thus, it is not strange for him to want to reform the Unemployment Insurance (UI) System. In his economic plan, McCain proposes the following reforms to bolster job security and assist displayed workers in America:
John McCain Believes We Should Have A Single, Seamless Approach To Job Transition Assistance. Workers will have access to a flexible training account that permits them to pay for training at a community college and use leftover funds to keep their health insurance.John McCain Will Provide Special, Targeted Assistance For Older Workers. Because training is often inefficient for older workers, those 55 years of age and older who have built up an LEB will be eligible for a Lost Earnings Supplement.
On the other hand, Sen. Barack Obama delivered an unusual and inspiring campaign speech in which he outlined specific, outside-the-box plans to address the extreme financial challenges facing middle-class Americans.
Among the specific interesting points in Barack Obama's Agenda to Reclaim the American Dream were: Middle class tax cuts of up to $1,000 for working families. Guaranteed paid sick days for workers and expand the Family and Medical Leave Act. Help Americans buy and keep their homes. Reforming bankruptcy laws, predatory credit card policies, and abusive payday lending practices. Reduce health care costs by $2,500 for a typical family. Provide a $4,000 refundable tax credit for college tuition.
Terrorism
McCain primarily identifies terrorism with "violent Islamist extremism," especially as manifested in Al Qaeda. McCain believes Al Qaeda continues to represent a significant threat to U.S. security. His solution includes ensuring quality intelligence, being protected against attack and being able to respond to an attack quickly. Our homeland security plans must also consider threats posed by major accidents, or nature itself. In each instance, John McCain’s strategy is to prevent those incidents we can, prepare for and respond to disasters of all kinds, and improve the recovery process for disaster victims.
On Obama’s part, He funneled many of his comments about the "war on terrorism" through his concerns with human and civil rights issues that it has raised. His campaign website establishes both small weapons proliferation and potential nuclear terrorism as significant U.S. priorities.
He joined critique of the bill's suspension of habeas corpus for potentially innocent detainees with the accusation that the government was not addressing the actual issues.
References:
http.//johnmccain.com
http.//www.nowpublic.com
http.//en.wikipedia.org/wiki.com
http.//barrackobama.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)