Reaction to "How is Rick Perry representing Texas"

         From a blog by my fellow classmate, Shannon, she discusses the her side on an issue concerning "how is Rick Perry representing Texas?" Keeping up with the GOP race myself, I was not completely caught off guard to hear about the general public's disdain towards our former governor's "mishaps," but I was shocked to see the extreme and insulting comments by Robert Becker. I completely agree with Shannon, as a fellow Texan, that the comments were disrespectful, rude, harsh, and filled with fallacies. The fact that he would generalize and judge an entire person over one mistake is one thing but to generalize the entirety of the state that they are representing is even worse. The comments exemplify Becker's close-mindedness and stereotypical judgement towards society.
          The only weakness I see in this argument against Becker is that Shannon needs more examples of good politicians from Texas to uphold the fact that Texas doesn't only yield bad politicians. In addition, Shannon could incorporate good bills or ideas that both George W. Bush and Rick Perry implemented or proposed which would outweigh their faults. Overall the article was very informative and well-composed with the only weakness in its argument structure that i previously addressed.

Government Cuts on Security

In the recent and developing attempt to purge the government budget of wasteful costs, new opposition has arisen in the military sector. The Pentagon has been bitter about having to eliminate major military programs such as ground-based nuclear missiles. A cutting process known as “sequestration,” which is automatic triggered cuts, is foreshadowed if the super committee in congress led by senator John McCain, continues to put crucial military programs on the chopping block.

Leon Panetta, the defense secretary has been vocal and active in his opposition to the military cuts calling for a halt or else national security will be at risk. He has predicted that if budgets are cut at the same rate as they are in the status quo, the ground force will return to the size it had decades ago. Not only has this been a major argument of preventing such cuts, which are utilized to mend the broken economy, but the supporters of the military have also claimed that such cuts would hurt the economy. Their claim is that if military manufacturers do not have the money to construct such military utilities, jobs would be lost and many would become unemployed by the cuts so essentially, the economic cuts would be counterproductive.

What is not understood by the government is that cuts must be made intelligently and effectively. The cuts being made currently is just using the military as a scapegoat to not have to cut down on programs that would damage politicians. The programs that are truly being wasteful include many of the welfare agencies that are allocated excess money. These are the controversial programs that have come to light in the American population’s eyes have brought on much questioning to where their tax dollars are going. Cutting down on programs that are in critical need and of significant importance to the labor force would be completely illogical. Although the government does need major trimming on excess budget allocations, we still must uphold the safety of the people and the nation. The government needs to reevaluate each and every portion of the budget and selectively and effectively restructure how cuts can be made while thinking long term as well. Even if the military cuts function in the status quo and give the economy a momentary relief, it will eventually catch up long term and damage the employment. 

Commenting on the Plague of the Economy

From a blog about the falling economy and migratory patterns, the government and politics in a nutshell outlines the ramifications of our detrimental market. As one of the millions of Americans that have fallen victim to the plaguing economy I completely agree with you interpretation on how it has affected migratory patterns. Although I do see how you draw the correlation, I am still confused about the root of what is inhibiting the people to move. I understand that people can’t move but desire to in order to broaden job opportunities due to the economy, but would they want to move in the first place if the economy was fine? I am still perplexed through the logic that you use why people ever move whether the economy is prospering or dying. You also make the claim about how the shift, when it is actually occurring, is from the North to the South as of recently but the reason why the south is more attractive to desperate workers is still unknown. I love your tie between the housing market with the realtors and people but I still wander what the possible solutions could be for such a perpetual issue. Another issue I have to question is that you state that the people have less to worry if they just stay where they are but isn’t the reason they are moving is because they are economically unstable? Would the risk be worth it to actually move and just make the best of it since there is nothing to lose anyway?