Is This Some Kind of Joke?

          If you watch any bit of Tv or even the Yahoo 'joke' of news, you must have realized that president Obama has been all over the place talking about the federal student loans interest rates. For those of you who have not heard about it; on July 1st the interest rates of the federal student loans could double to a 6.8%. This interest rate is actually really low compared with the average credit card, however, many people are concerned about the change.
          As a student, I depend on Financial Aid to pay for my education and I fear that the outcome of this possible change may interfere with my future. Let me break down the fears I share with many other people:
          1  -  6.8% is a very low rate compared to a credit card, but a student loan adds up fast and it      cannot be paid immediately. In other words, if you have any student debt, you know that you can only pay for interests while you are studying, but cannot start to pay your debt until you graduate. This means that as time passes the interest you pay grows and so does you debt, which takes longer to pay because when you graduate you have to pay the interest plus the imaginary house that you owe.

          2  -  The tuition rates are rapidly increasing by semester. It is obvious that the more tuition you pay the bigger gets your debt. Some people are already stretching their budget in order to get some education, and this small 3.4% extra could be a boundary that they cannot afford. 

          3  -  A bachelors degree does not guarantee you a job anymore. We are familiar with the stories of students who graduated, but did not find a job on their field of study, and ended spending more that half of their minimum wage salary in paying for student loans. Also, the graduate students who did find a job, but it took them almost a decade to pay for their debt.

         After considering all this points I think: What does Congress or Republicans think that we students should do in order to get some decent education? Join the army? Not everybody has the courage that takes to fight a war,  and not everybody is physically able to do it. Do we have to work several jobs, so we can pay out of our pockets? Again, not everybody can work overtime and study at the same time, while keeping an outstanding GPA. Maybe they just expect us to pay for our student debt for 20 years, after we postponed the normal life that we dreamed after our graduation. The life where we owned a house, and built a family because our education gave us financial stability.

       It really bothers me how Obama, Congress, and the Republicans are fighting about how could they fund a the possible extension of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. Obama wants to extend the act by increasing the taxes of the wealthy class, while republicans have found the excuse to cut the budget of the Affordable Care Act. Then, Congress is considering the possibility of cutbacks in the Pell programs, while Democrats had proposed the Stop the Rate Hike Act, which ends unwarranted tax subsidies to big oil and gas companies. I feel that the way that politicians are handling this matter is a joke. What are their priorities? For me is very clear that in this situation the priorities should be in this order:

        1  -  Keep the country healthy, so the population can grow and be functional. For this reason, not budget should be taken from the Affordable Care Act.
        2  -  Keep the population educated, so your country can keep evolving. For this reason education should be as affordable as possible.

        To increase the economical burden over the lower and middle class while the rich fill their pockets it should not be a priority, so if money has to come from somewhere in order to maintain those two priories, I think the rich and oil companies should pay higher taxes.

        For now, I am happy because at least they all agree with the fact that the College Cost Reduction and Access Act should be extended, however, I am afraid that this could not go in effect if they do not find a fair common ground.

This is the Cross that Ms & Ms Smith Carry

          If you have read my previous posts, you know that Ms and Ms Smith are a same-sex couple that has been slowly gaining legal marital approval among the US. Today, I found an interesting article that relates to the journey of the Smiths as I was reading my classmates blogs, so I decided to share it. The name of the article is Gay Rights Vs. Religious Liberty by Allison Frueh. It is clear that Allison sympathizes with the cause and journey of same-sex couples who are fighting for the same rights of heterosexual couples, so this article's target is a liberal audience. I decided to share it because I think her article can be seen as an extension of the one I wrote previously

          Allison argues that there is a thin line between when heterosexism is justified or not by religious freedom. To support this argument Allison provided the example of a business owner who refused to offer services to a gay couple, based on the argument that such action was against christian believes. The contradiction in this story is that the owner was sued, and fined under the charges of discrimination even when she has freedom of religion. Even when I think this is a perfect example of a contradictory situation involving religion and homosexuality, it would have been more completed if Allison provided a link with more information about the story. I believe she did a great job trying to keep a neutral tone on her statements, for this shows how insightful she is and reaffirms her desire to find common ground in this matter. I agree with Allison's opinion that it is not wrong for a pastor to refuse his religious services based on sexual preferences, because he has the constitutional right to exercise his religion as it is established. However, I would have liked her to explain why this scenario can be compared with discriminating job applicants, even when the scenarios are very different and apply to different laws like the constitution or federal law. I understand her comparison and agree with it, but some kind of explanation would have helped readers who are not well informed about politics to understand the analogy. Allison ends her article stating her believe that "Businesses that hold themselves out as public accommodations should be ready and willing to serve everyone. Anything else is discrimination." which I think is a superb sentence to summarize and clearly state her opinion.

          I completely agree with Allison's point of view through the article and would recommend everybody to read it, as well as the original story. I would like to end my critic with a question: If worshipers have freedom of religion, does that exempt them from following other laws?