The President is dead-on accurate with these comments. Colleges should be places of robust discussions – not places where only one side of an argument is allowed to be presented for fear of hurting the feelings of college students. In fact, more than “both sides” of the story should be presented. As we all should understand, each issue has many different “sides” and as many of those sides as possible should be presented to help give college students better perspectives on which to make their own decisions.

Pretty entertaining if you ask me. I hope you enjoyed the video!

Now why aren’t all of the debates handled in this manner?

With this entry, I’d like to kick off my comments about this year’s Presidential election by providing you with some official comments on what each campaign thinks about “my issue” – that is, what they think about student loans.

From the Obama website (the Obama website bashes Romney quite a bit; that low-level partisanship crap is not carried over here):

By doubling funding for Pell Grants and establishing a college tax credit, President Obama is putting higher education within reach for millions more Americans.

President Obama successfully fought to prevent federal student loan interest rates from doubling for more than 7 million students, and capped federal student loan repayments at 10% of income. This means responsible students and their families can make decisions about the future based on career goals rather than the price of tuition.

From the Romney website:

Higher Ed: A New Vision Of Affordable And Applicable Learning

America’s traditional community and four-year colleges are the heart of our nation’s higher education system. However, a flood of federal dollars is driving up tuition and burdening too many young Americans with substantial debt and too few opportunities. Meanwhile, other models of advanced skills training are becoming ever more important to success in the American economy, and new educational institutions will be required to fill those roles. Mitt’s reforms spur the access, affordability, innovation, and transparency needed to address all of these challenges:

• Strengthen And Simplify The Financial Aid System.
• Welcome Private Sector Participation Instead Of Pushing It Away.
• Replace Burdensome Regulation With Innovation And Competition.

There are additional comments on each website regarding the candidates’ educational plans and the Obama website also gives additional details, separately, about his plan. However, Obama’s website goes well out of its way to bash and mischaracterize his opponent. It’s really disheartening that the President of the United States would rely on old school, bash-based politics for his re-election campaign – especially after tens of millions voted for a politician in 2008 who promised hope for the future and change from that type of politics.

Oh well, I guess that hope and change guy from 2008 wasn’t being entirely truthful about what type of change we had in store!

All of that aside, the takeaway that I get from reading the two blurbs above is that neither of these candidates are speaking directly to my concerns about student loans. Sure, they are talking about making college more affordable, but that’s really a false issue. Think about it – why do you think the cost of higher education keeps skyrocketing? It has nothing to do with the salaries of professors or staff (despite what you might hear). The truth is that colleges are in a cutthroat race against each other to provide higher levels of service and better, more modern facilities. And neither of these candidates has a solution that addresses that problem because, frankly, it’s not a concern that should be handled at the federal level!

You may be wondering, “Then what would be a good answer for you on this topic, Joe?” Well, I’ll tell you! I don’t want to hear about the cost of higher education decreasing because of higher federal subsidies. No. Instead, I want to hear that good, honest, decent students who academically perform in a remarkably successful manner while attending a public high school will be offered a path to a reasonably affordable bachelor’s degree in the public higher education system. What does that mean? It means that if you score at the highest levels of your high school class, then there ought to be a program for you to receive a dramatic tuition reduction (if not just free tuition) to attend the local county college for two years. Once you complete those two years, if you maintain that high level of academic achievement, then the same financial benefit (either dramatically reduced tuition rates or free tuition) should carry over to a four year public institution.

In this scenario, you can receive a college education at almost no cost, so long as you bust your butt in the classroom to earn it. As a guy who has been a student on-and-off for 30 years and as a guy who has taught in several different types of classrooms, I can tell you that there just aren’t that many students who would qualify for this type of program. So why not offer this program – and do it at the state level without getting the federal government involved – starting immediately? New Jersey used to have this type of program, but it was gutted and I don’t think it’s in existence any more.

When it comes to student loans – there isn’t much substance on either side of the election thus far.

The message here is obvious, right? If you’re Catholic, then you should probably vote for the candidate that will support religious freedom as defined by not forcing religious institutions to provide contraception to their employees. Like it or not, I agree with that stance. I think if you’re a registered, recognized religious organization (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Wiccan, whatever!), then you are protected by the Constitution’s guaranty of religious freedom. Further, I think if the government tells you that you have to do anything that is fundamentally against your teachings, then the government is wrong.

I have no interest in going into details on the other issues noted in the video such as the job creation, the economy, the definition of marriage (my take on this particular issue is totally out of view with the mainstream anyway since I don’t think the government should be saying anyone is “married”), and so on. However, I do think the overall message of the video is one that religious folks should consider during this election cycle and all election cycles: do you vote according to what is popular or do you seriously consider the issues and vote according to your faith?

Most folks would assume that voting your faith means that you’re going to vote Republican. Well, that’s not entirely accurate. In some parts of this country, the education reform movement is bolstered and supported by the Democratic Party and thus if you vote your Christian faith (or whatever faith you are) you may be persuaded to vote Democrat. Further, if you are of a new age Christian faith where your interpretation of the Bible redefines marriage and the structure of civil society, then you’re probably also voting Democrat.

The point here is two fold. First, I like that the video encourages religious people to consider what their faith teaches them about the issues of the day. Second, don’t be so quick to assume that integrating a faith-based perspective into politics automatically means a vote for the Republicans or the Democrats.

Give it some thought. If you believe in something greater than yourself that is of a religious nature, then maybe this is the year that you want to let your faith be your guide.

My favorite quotes from the speech:

“Teachers teach because they love children.”

“Real leaders don’t follow polls. Real leaders change polls!”

Excellent job, Governor Christie. Way to knock it out of the park!

Though I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t mind citing who I voted for in the prior presidential elections. In 2000 I didn’t vote (and I couldn’t tell you why – I honestly don’t remember), in 2004 I voted for George W. Bush, and in 2008 I voted for Obama. The reason I voted for Bush in 2004 is because he was the right man for the job at that time and his competition (Senator John Kerry from Massachusetts) just wasn’t the man to be President. Similarly, the reason that I voted for Obama was because he was the right man for the job. The difference between my vote for Obama and my vote for Bush was that Bush was ready for the job and Obama was a little green under the collar. However, I thought that with the cast of characters surrounding Obama (Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, etc) that he would be able to cobble together a decent first year, learn about executive leadership while on the job, and then have an outstanding second, third, and fourth years in office.

As an independent observer, I can’t honestly say that the past four years have been good ones for Obama or for the country.

The root of the problem for the last four years is an executive leadership team (headed up by Obama) who refuse to take blame for the bad things going on in the country. They point to prior administrations and say the bad things are their fault, not the fault of the current administration. That argument may have worked during the first days, weeks, and months of the administration, but at some point you bought the farm and its lack of crops is your fault. Obama and his advisors don’t seem to get that simple fact of management – that at some point you can no longer point behind you and say, “This is all their fault.”

So I look at a guy like Obama – a guy who doesn’t understand leadership and doesn’t understand the economy and there’s no way I can see myself voting for him again. His Presidency will go down as one of the most mediocre, if not fiscally atrocious, ones in the modern era.

And then I turn and look at a guy like Mitt Romney and I want to put my fist through the wall.

Really, Republicans? Really? This is the guy you chose to run against Obama? Good grief.

When I look at Romney I see what the man is – a very rich, northeastern businessman who dabbled in politics for a little while and has been running for President since 2007. He made a ton of money as an investor before he became a politician and that doesn’t bother me at all. Good for him. I hope everyone has an opportunity in their lives to make the type of money that Romney made. Granted, not everyone will seize that opportunity or even be presented with that type of opportunity in the first place, but I don’t begrudge anybody on this planet their success or their natural environment. In other words, if you’re born into a rich family like Romney, then I don’t hold that against you. If you choose to flaunt that wealth like it’s your own (think Paris Hilton and the crew of morons that she hangs around with), then I think you deserve the near-unanimous scorn that you get from the public.

Romney might have been born into money, but he made a ton more money on his own and I don’t hate him for that success.

What I find absolutely shocking, though, is that the Republican power brokers decided to make this man the presidential nominee when his core life experience doesn’t speak – at all – to the group of Americans who are most upset with the Obama administration. If you look at the folks out there who are disenfranchised by and upset with Obama’s performance, then you’d see that they are mostly middle class people who live in the heartland of American. Sure, some of the liberal-leaning people from the far West and East Coasts are also fed up with Obama’s inability to lead and fundamental dislike of the capitalist economy, but you can’t talk to the fringes of the disenfranchised and expect that to ignite the type of fire that can throw a sitting President out of office. And that’s what the Republicans did by selecting Romney – they chose a guy whose life experience is cut from a different cloth than the type of people who want Obama out of office. They chose a rich guy who has absolutely no idea what it’s like to struggle financially, what it’s like to not be able to find a job, what it’s like to have seemingly insurmountable bills piling up week after week, month after month.

Did the Republicans have to pick a “common man” to be their nominee in order to beat Obama? Not necessarily. They should have, however, picked a guy who at least speaks to the common man’s experience in America. That’s not Mitt Romney. At all.

The bottom line is – do you think Romney would be a better leader than Obama and I think the answer is a simple, unenthusiastic “yes.” The man was a wild success as a businessman/investor and a good executive-level politician. That’s it. He’s got the charisma of a wet noodle and is about as endearing as a bruise that won’t go away.

Where that leaves me this November is in an uncertain place. In good conscience, I can’t vote for Obama again. Aside from lying during the campaign (remember the line that no one making less than $250,000 would see their taxes go up? Yeah – then we got the myriad hidden taxes to pay for his healthcare law… liar), he’s just not grounded in the realities of this economy. However, my gut tells me that Romney isn’t the right man for the job. He has no connection to the disgruntled voter base and simply doesn’t understand what it’s like to be a regular, working class or struggling person in today’s America.

It’s a shame that there isn’t a strong third party in America because this is the election where they’d see major success. You have the Libertarian party running former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, but they aren’t given any coverage by the media. There’s always the chance that a guy like Ron Paul could launch an independent candidacy and challenge both Obama and Romney, but that would just about secure the reelection of Obama and I don’t think Paul wants to do that at all. Or, you could just not vote this time around, but I prefer to actually vote because you get a chance to vote for the “undercard” including state and local elections (where, I think, a person’s votes actually matter).

Not sure who I’ll vote for this November, but a third party looks more exciting than either of the big two candidates. All I know for sure is that I absolutely cannot vote for Obama again.

In the mean time, the New York Daily News reports that they’ve honored the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, the 60th Anniversary of the Communist Takeover of China, and gay pride week. In the coming week, they plan to honor Corporate Philanthropy Day and National Eating Disorders Awareness Week. Really? You’re going to honor the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Corporate Philanthropy Day and then NOT honor Cardinal Dolan?

Give me a break.

Thankfully, the much bigger, much more important Freedom Tower at 1 World Trade Center decided to make this situation right by bathing the building in red in honor of the new Cardinal. Take a look at these amazing pictures taken by Anthony Quintano and posted on Flickr.com:

I don’t know about you, but the Freedom Tower looks pretty good drenched in the red that is symbolic of the Cardinal’s new attire. Very nicely done by the team at the Port Authority.

New world model for medical reform that will not bankrupt a nations economy. how to reform medicare/medicaid programs,prevent hospital insolvency and balance the federal deficit over the long term.

Medicare and the Health care industry world wide is broken.i am mainly addressing the problems. America is experiencing but facets of this plan could be adapted by most other countries. There is also a shortage of doctors, besides the fact that medical students are loaded with medical school debt. There is a long term solution: medical students lacking in adequate financial funds should have the cost of their medical school education paid for by the federal government.. the graduating doctors would not be burdened with school loan debt under this medical reform plan.

This would not be a giveaway or money loser for the federal government. the federal governments would recover all of their initial investment plus, over the long term. Let me explain: By accepting government funding for his/her medical school education, the student doctor would agree to provide free medical office treatment/care to a percentage of poor patient deemed so by the federal government. The doctor’s obligations,time of service and percentage of free patient treatment would be determined by existing federal agencies. the participating doctors as as stipulated for the free government medical school education would not be able to bill the governments medicare/medicaid programs. thus assuring the government of the return of their free medical school investment plus. the poor patients would not have to receive free hospital emergency treatment under this program. hospitals would not be burdened by providing free treatment to the poor preventing hospital insolvency.

The return of the federal government’s initial investment would be through Medicare/Medicaid savings. for what i understand in the United States of America that For every 1% Medicare saves over a one year over the course of 15 years would factor to a total savings of $1 trillion dollars for the federal government. It is easy to understand what the federal government would save as the pool of participating doctors grows. This practice could later be expanded to include the more expensive tests and other medical specialties and providers, such as x-ray, lab and other technical tests procedures and other specialties thus providing additional savings to the federal government. the trillions of dollars saved by the federal government over the long term would balance the federal deficit.

So what do you think about Mr. Martino’s plan? Feel free to use the comments section below to let us know your thoughts. We look forward to hearing from you!

The reason why I’m not interested in watching Barack Obama continue to be the “leader” of this country is because the man has very poor leadership skills. And don’t think I’m flattered with the Republicans, either. When I look at the national, elected Republican leadership I can’t help but shake my head while thinking, “Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are the best that this party can do?”

The economy is in the dump because, in part, the leadership qualities of our nation’s leaders are even further in the dump.