PDA

View Full Version : Working on a debt limit OpEd for local paper




thehighwaymanq
07-17-2011, 12:38 AM
Please proofread and give me criticisms and suggestions! :)


American politics has been dominated lately by talk of the debt ceiling: will we default, who is to blame, and what will happen on August 2?

(I NEED TRANSITION HERE)

Since 1940, Congress has voted to raise the debt ceiling over 100 times. It was actually raised 10 times in the last decade alone. Washington has a spending addiction. We spend $10 billion dollars a day, and borrow $4 billion of that. The United States now assumes a debt of well over $14 trillion dollars. Washington must pay interest on debt in order to not default. Currently, President Obama is warning seniors they will not receive their Social Security checks unless the debt ceiling is passed. He is warning military personnel they will not get paid. This is just another example of political theater building up economic fear.

The math is simple. The federal government receives $200 billion in revenue each month from taxes. Interest on the national debt will be about $30 billion in August. Social Security will cost about 50 billion as well as Medicare and Medicaid. Payment for military personnel will cost around $3 billion. That leaves about $65 billion left over to fund government. President Obama is using classic fear-mongering tactics in order to get his debt limit passed.

Raising the debt ceiling would only mean the status quo prevailed again. Government must finally assume responsibility, and live within their means like the rest of their citizens struggling in difficult times. Spending restraints need to be implemented. There is no point in having a debt ceiling if it will constantly be raised. What good is it to set limit we ignore?

Texas Congressman and 2012 Presidential candidate Ron Paul (ronpaul2012.com) has voted against every potential debt ceiling raise since he has been in Congress. Mr. Paul said, “But like any debtor that has to reduce its spending, the federal government simply needs to establish priorities and stop spending money on anything other than those priorities.

This entire situation is another example of an absolute failure in Republican “leadership” and the totally irresponsible embarrassment known as the Obama Administration. And it's happened before! In the 1980’s, a compromise was struck by Republicans and Democrats regarding the debt ceiling. The tax hikes came, but the spending cuts never did. In the 90’s, new taxes were instituted but once again not spending cuts. Let’s watch as the Republican “leadership’’ compromises again to the irresponsible Democrats. But don’t forget to check Congressman Paul’s vote- once again not faltering under the pressure of the Washington Establishment.

Ron Paul for President 2012.

thehighwaymanq
07-17-2011, 01:29 AM
I added a line to the third paragraph so it looks like this:


The math is simple. The federal government receives $200 billion in revenue each month from taxes. Interest on the national debt will be about $30 billion in August. Social Security will cost about 50 billion as well as Medicare and Medicaid. Payment for military personnel will cost around $3 billion. That leaves about $65 billion left over to fund government. President Obama is using classic fear-mongering tactics in order to get his debt limit passed. The only reason seniors won’t get Social Security checks is because President Obama will chose to fund his unconstitutional war in Libya instead. Then, he’ll blame it on the Republicans, who will blame the entire thing on him, and through the bickering and useless drama, the American people will suffer more.

thehighwaymanq
07-17-2011, 12:28 PM
BUMP. Can somebody please look over this so I can send it in to the paper?

Thargok
07-17-2011, 12:53 PM
American politics has been dominated lately by talk of the debt ceiling: will we default, who is to blame, and what will happen on August 2?

If we are to believe Republicans, then raising the debt limit was perfectly fine under the Bush Administration but now with the Tea Party pushing it is time to get our house in order. If we are to believe Democrats, debt was a huge issue under the Bush Administration, but now with record high spending Armageddon will occur the minute the federal government actually tries to balance the budget.

Which is precisely what President Obama is saying. This week he started warning seniors they will not receive their Social Security checks unless the debt ceiling is passed. The President is also warning military personnel they will not get paid. This is the same man who vocally voted against raising the debt ceiling less than a decade ago. Is this not another example of partisan politics and fear mongering as usual?

Since 1940, Congress has voted to raise the debt ceiling over 100 times. It has actually been raised 10 times in the last decade alone. What is the point in having a debt ceiling if it will constantly be raised? Are we just going to spend ourself to oblivion? The true non-partisan answer is that Washington has a spending addiction, the problem is which ever party doesn't hold the Presidency are the only people rallying against spending.

Right now the United States spends $10 billion dollars a day, and of that $4 billion is borrowed. The United States has as of today accumulated a national debt of well over $14 trillion dollars.

Despite the fact that the budget is hidden behind thousands of pages, the math is quite simple. The federal government receives $200 billion in revenue each month from taxes, of this interest on the national debt comes out about $30 billion in August. Social Security along with Medicare and Medicaid will cost about 50 billion. Payment for military personnel will cost around $3 billion. That leaves about $65 billion left over to fund the federal government.

Instead of tackling the issues, President Obama is using classic fear-mongering tactics in order to get his debt limit passed. The only reason seniors won’t get Social Security checks (if the President isn't bluffing) is because President Obama will chose to fund his unconstitutional war in Libya instead. If this happens, the President can attempt blame it on the Republicans, who will in turn blame the entire thing on him, and through the bickering and useless drama, the American people will only suffer more.

Raising the debt ceiling mean the status quo have once again prevailed. It is time for government to finally assume responsibility, and live within their means like the rest of us in these difficult time. The country has no choice but to implement spending restraints.

Texas Congressman and 2012 Presidential candidate Ron Paul has voted against every potential debt ceiling raise since he has been in Congress. Mr. Paul stated, “But like any debtor that has to reduce its spending, the federal government simply needs to establish priorities and stop spending money on anything other than those priorities."


I cleaned it up a bit for you, I'm not trying to write this for you but your last paragraph is a bit redundant and you are trying to plea emotionally against the debt ceiling, yet you fall back to empiricism and figures. You should end on praise for Ron Paul, and mention how he is rallying against the debt ceiling and the failures of the republican "leadership". Also ronpaul2012.com should be your sign off, not thrown into the editorial.

Instead of ending with "Ron Paul for President." you should say something "This is precisely why I plan on voting for Ron Paul for President. If you are interested in learning more about his plan to Restore America please visit his website at www.ronpaul2012.com"

TheNcredibleEgg
07-17-2011, 12:56 PM
I'd remove the references to Ron Paul - especially the one at the bottom. It makes the piece appear biased.

I would also add some common language parallels, such as:

The gov't reaching the debt ceiling is like a person maxing out of your credit cards. It doesn't mean you default. It just means you cannot keep spending more than you earn anymore. You must live within your means.

Thargok
07-17-2011, 12:58 PM
I'd remove the references to Ron Paul - especially the one at the bottom. It makes the piece appear biased.

I would also add some common language parallels, such as:

The gov't reaching the debt ceiling is like a person maxing out of your credit cards. It doesn't mean you default. It just means you cannot keep spending more than you earn anymore. You must live within your means.

It's an Op-Ed, it is supposed to be an opinion piece.

Paul4Prez
07-17-2011, 01:06 PM
Third paragraph:
What good is it to set limit we ignore? Should say "What good is to set a limit we ignore?" or "What good is it to set a limit we repeatedly ignore?"

Fourth paragraph:
Mr. Paul said, “But like any debtor that has to reduce its spending, the federal government simply needs to establish priorities and stop spending money on anything other than those priorities. You're missing the closing quotation mark.

thehighwaymanq
07-17-2011, 01:15 PM
Thank you to everyone for helping! I am working on finishing it now!

thehighwaymanq
07-17-2011, 02:22 PM
Finished. Thanks again to everyone who helped.


American politics has been dominated lately by talk of the debt ceiling: will we default, who is to blame, and what will happen on August 2? This economic discussion may seem boring and esoteric, but it’s actually very straight-forward.

Since 1940, Congress has voted to raise the debt ceiling over 100 times. It was actually raised 10 times in the last decade alone. What is the point of having a debt ceiling if it will constantly be raised? The fact is that Washington has a spending addiction. We spend $10 billion dollars a day, and borrow $4 billion of that. The United States now assumes a debt of well over $14 trillion dollars.

If we are to believe Republicans, then raising the debt limit was perfectly fine under the Bush Administration, but a horrible idea right now. If we are to believe Democrats, the debt ceiling was a huge issue under the Bush Administration, but somehow not raising it now will cause economic Armageddon. President Obama ironically said this in 2006, “America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.” The lack of consistency in Washington is glaring.

Washington must pay interest on debt in order to not default. Currently, President Obama is warning seniors they will not receive their Social Security checks unless the debt ceiling is passed. He is warning military personnel they will not get paid. This is just another example of political theater building up economic fear.

Despite the fact that the budget is hidden behind thousands of pages, the math is quite simple. The federal government receives $200 billion in revenue each month from taxes. Interest on the national debt will be about $30 billion in August. Social Security will cost about 50 billion as well as Medicare and Medicaid. Payment for military personnel will cost around $3 billion. That leaves about $65 billion left over to fund government. It is time to make the necessary cuts and decide where to put that $65 billion. President Obama is using classic fear-mongering tactics in order to get his debt limit passed. The only reason seniors won’t get Social Security checks is because President Obama will chose to fund his unconstitutional war in Libya instead. Then, he’ll blame it on the Republicans, who will blame the entire thing on him, and through the bickering and useless drama, the American people will suffer more.

Raising the debt ceiling would only mean the status quo in Washington prevailed again. Government must finally assume responsibility, and live within their means like the rest of their citizens struggling in difficult times. Spending restraints need to be implemented.

This entire situation is another example of an absolute failure in Republican “leadership” and the totally irresponsible embarrassment known as the Obama Administration. And it's happened before! In the 1980’s, a compromise was struck by Republicans and Democrats regarding the debt ceiling. The tax hikes came, but the spending cuts never did. In the 90’s, new taxes were instituted but once again not spending cuts. Let’s watch as the Republican “leadership’’ compromises again to the irresponsible Democrats.

Texas Congressman and 2012 Presidential candidate Ron Paul has voted against every potential debt ceiling raise since he has been in Congress. Mr. Paul said, “But like any debtor that has to reduce its spending, the federal government simply needs to establish priorities and stop spending money on anything other than those priorities.” In the flurry of inconsistent politicians, Congressman Paul will not back down to the Washington Establishment.

This is precisely why I plan on voting for Ron Paul for President. If you are interested in learning more about his plan to Restore America please visit his website at www.ronpaul2012.com

thehighwaymanq
07-17-2011, 05:34 PM
Emails sent out to all local newspapers. Fingers crossed for a publishing!

thehighwaymanq
07-17-2011, 05:46 PM
Please re-tweet this!

VoluntaryAmerican
07-17-2011, 08:28 PM
Please proofread and give me criticisms and suggestions! :)

Is this a Letter to the editor? Or is it an Op-ed Piece, as your title says? I ask because the difference is huge.

If you submitted this as an Op-ed it does not stand a chance... unfortunately.

If as a letter to an editor, perhaps it does.

gosmo
07-17-2011, 08:36 PM
I think it has a good chance in a local paper. If it were to compete with some of the poor stuff I see in my local paper (which is in the capital of my state), it would easily get in.

VoluntaryAmerican
07-17-2011, 08:41 PM
I think it has a good chance in a local paper. If it were to compete with some of the poor stuff I see in my local paper (which is in the capital of my state), it would easily get in.

I'm a journalism major.

His article is NOT an Op-ed. Op-ed means it is 1st person, and draws from his life, his experience. He does not once use 1st person in the article.

His article as is (if submitted as an Op-ed) has many amatuer mistakes. Most importantly, he did not put a -30- at the end of the article... so right now an editor is reading it, scratching his head, and thinking it is not a complete piece.

Also it needs more conservation of language.

He can always fix this. That's the beauty of writing. And there are always different newspapers and more attempts. Op-ed is the artform of non-fiction. Not every person who tries can get published.