Original Editoral

National debt always has a way of manipulating its viewers to think about what they are trying to say. They present certain issues and isolate them in way to where the national debt is perceived in a completely different manner. The different between the Republican National Party and the Democratic National Party is a good example.
Since the beginning of American politics (1860), we have lived in a two party political system. These two parties play a very important role in our government, they are a source of ideas for public policy, and they legally oppose each other, forcing compromises of ideas that are beneficial to the people of the United States of America. Though these two parties generally always oppose each other on the issues, some people believe that there are not significant differences between the Democratic National Party and the Republican National Party. I disagree with this. When the domestic economic issues of the 1996 and 1992 presidential elections are examined, the Republican National Party and the Democratic National Party show themselves to be very different. A budget deficit accurse when government expenditure outstrip tax receipts during any single year; the national debt is the total sum of what the federal government owes its creditors. When government collect less taxation or spend more expenditure. It needs to finance the unbalanced budget by issuing new debt securities the national debt.
The national debt is an issue of great concern to the economy. Each year, the debt amounts to a higher percentage of GDP. The debt weighs down the economy, and the interest payment are consuming an ever larger share of the national budget.
I believe this whole thing with the national debt needs to be taken care of because there is no pint in it. The debt is growing so large so fast like the media, when will it stop? According to Keynes it is health for and economy to run a deficit during lean times; however, it should be caught up during good times. When will the Untied States ever catch up will we keep rolling it over for future generation? I believe it will become so large that we will no longer be able to pay the interest on it. Something must be done.
In conclusion, I agree with this plan point, but if the national debt continues to be ignored, it will come back to haunt us so I believe that the deficit needs to be balanced but in a way so that Americans feel few of the budget cut backs. There are two ways of balancing the budget and pursue a national policy of providing high level of government services and defense rather than making mammoth cuts in a social fabric that has served the United States and the world well. I think that Clinton’s 10 year plan is of more interest to the American people than the Republican 7 years plan.

“The world would be a better place if…”

The Nuclear holocaust is the destruction of whole nation in the blink of an eye. We cannot hide from the threat that nuclear weapons pose to humanity and all life. These are not ordinary weapons, but instruments of mass annihilation that could destroy civilians and end all life on Earth. Nuclear weapons are morally and legally unjustifiable. They destroy indiscriminately- soldiers and civilians; men, women and children; the aged and the newly born; the healthy and the infirm. The world would be a far safer and better place if the Pandora’s Box of nuclear weapons had never been opened.
Many historians argue that the United States began the Cold War by ending Word War II with the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. Four years later, on August 9, 1949, the Soviet Union developed its own nuclear weapons.
A few days ago the Washington Post stated in an article saying that “the U.N. says Iran may not have come clean on nuclear past.” The article was written by Joby Warrick and Colum Lynch on Sunday, March 2, 2008. The article is about that Iran has been denied or another word has been pushing, ever seeking nuclear weapons. The Washington Post has apparently gotten a hold of internal documents demonstrating that Iran was actively pursuing nuclear bomb research until about four years ago, according to the Washington Post.
I read this article and I thought about it to my self for a minute, but I ended up saying why not? So I found out that I cannot agree with the writers. Is Iran the only country that has nuclear weapons? Why can’t they have them? I’m not saying that because Iran is my home county; I’m disagreeing with the writers because they just want to scare people by using the term “some of the document tells” to prove to people that it is a very serous problem and people have to agree with the president to go to war with Iran. The writers want to convince the world to believe them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/01/AR2008030101722.html