http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/sunday-review/the-secret-war-with-iran.html?ref=nationalsecuritycouncil&_r=0
in this article in iran there have been bomings were the person on a motorcycle pull ups to the next to the car then attaches a magnet to the side of the car with a bomb on it and it explodes. there two cases of this happing in iran. iran is saying that israel is behide the attack and beleave that the "sticky bombs" are the hallmark of Mossad hit. Iran is probably the most challaging test that Obama will have to face because he has to think of new and cheap ways that will advoide putting troops on the ground while being still able to protect the people who are not terroist.
i agree with that Obama is going have to think of another root to iran and how he is going to come at it. I think it would be a good idea to take out some troops and then leave some of them in there just to keep control and i beleave that is one of Obamas options that he is faceing. i think that the war on terror will never really be over with so what we have to do is just keep a control on it and limit there resources and prevent attacks from happing, which we have been doing. the connection is the president use of media to show that he is trying to get stuff done. he is goiing to the press and giving speeches about how he is pulling out troops and trying to get the feel for what the people feel about it.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Social Welfare
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/sunday-review/the-trap-of-supplemental-security-income.html?ref=welfareus&_r=0
Summary: This article is basically about how 8.7 million people rely on cash assistance from a program called Supplemental Security Income. The program was designed to help the blind, and aged and disabled people, by providing clothing and shelter for them. In the next 20 years or so the government is expected to spend around $60 million for 9.9 million people. Many experts say that the Supplemental Security Income program and limits their income levels to just above poverty, taking away benefits if they gain any level of security.
Reaction: I think that the program is a good idea, but some improvements that should be made soon are that these people, whether they are disabled or not, should be allowed to earn some extra money outside of what the government provides for them. Most people can live off of $500 a month, but the disabled people must pay for transportation to go to stores and such because they can't drive. Bus fares could cost a lot depending on the city in which they live in. If people were allowed to earn like an extra $100 doing simple things, it could improve their level of security and lift them above the poverty line by more than what you think $100 could do.
Kranovich- Economy
http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/13/news/economy/minimum-wage-countries/index.html
In this article it talks about how President Obama would like to raise the minimum wage up to $9 an hour. He believes that this could help strengthen America. He also thinks that if we are the greatest country that no one who works full time should be under the poverty level. Obama would also like to do this because he doesn't want to fall behind other countries who are raising their minimum wage.
I believe raising the minimum wage is not a good idea. This could hurt companies because they won't be able to hire people because they can't afford to pay more. The class connection for this is that Obama is kind of "going public" about this by bringing it up at the State of the Union so that Congress may start to think about making a bill about this.
In this article it talks about how President Obama would like to raise the minimum wage up to $9 an hour. He believes that this could help strengthen America. He also thinks that if we are the greatest country that no one who works full time should be under the poverty level. Obama would also like to do this because he doesn't want to fall behind other countries who are raising their minimum wage.
I believe raising the minimum wage is not a good idea. This could hurt companies because they won't be able to hire people because they can't afford to pay more. The class connection for this is that Obama is kind of "going public" about this by bringing it up at the State of the Union so that Congress may start to think about making a bill about this.
Environment Bryce Melton
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/opinion/the-case-for-a-higher-gasoline-tax.html?ref=environment&_r=0
Right now the average price of gas per gallon is $3.78, which has greatly increased in the last month. It is reaching the peaks of gas prices that we have ever had. The Government is trying to raise prices on gas so that americans will drive more fuel efficient cars to help our environment and greenhouse effect. Politicians fear what people will say and do about this, but say it is only to help the environment, not a social issue. The rising price is to help build better roads that have become very poor and to help out our economy. Germany once raised the tax on their gas and earned 25 billion dollars in revenue. Many say that this could be the best improvement for our environment we have had in a very long time.
I believe that if they are going to raise the price on gas, it should not be raised that much. As a working teenager gas is already very expensive for me, and I can not afford a fuel efficient car for myself. This also will have a major effect on the lower class families that already have a hard time paying for gas. If they are going to raise the prices like this, they should make some fuel efficient cars more affordable for those who cant dish out all of that money. I agree that politicians will lose many supporters because people will become irate with the rising gas prices. However, in the end I do see this all paying off for our environment and public roads.
Environment - Seaba
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/sunday-review/the-biggest-carbon-sin-air-travel.html?_r=0
Summary: The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act breezed by congress with bipartisan support and was quickly signed by president Obama. The law essentially forbids the United States airlines for participateing in the European Union Emissions Trading System. This system involves power plants and manufacturers payng fees if they produce excess carbon emissions. The year the aviation sector was suppose to start paaying fees for emissions from planes going in and out of European airports. The United States, Idian, and Chinese governments and airlines went ballistic. They filied lawsuits and treated trade action, after which the European Commission said it would delay full implimentation for a year. A trip to Europe and back is equivilant to 2 to 3 tons of carbon per person.
Reaction: I find it ironic that President Obama would quickly sign a bill against dealing with climate change even though during his inaugural speech he said that he was going to help with climate change. I also see why the governments don't like this Act though, because it would mean that our government would have to pay the fees to the European Union.
Connection: This bill was signed into law by the President after going through both Senate and the House of Representatives.
Summary: The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act breezed by congress with bipartisan support and was quickly signed by president Obama. The law essentially forbids the United States airlines for participateing in the European Union Emissions Trading System. This system involves power plants and manufacturers payng fees if they produce excess carbon emissions. The year the aviation sector was suppose to start paaying fees for emissions from planes going in and out of European airports. The United States, Idian, and Chinese governments and airlines went ballistic. They filied lawsuits and treated trade action, after which the European Commission said it would delay full implimentation for a year. A trip to Europe and back is equivilant to 2 to 3 tons of carbon per person.
Reaction: I find it ironic that President Obama would quickly sign a bill against dealing with climate change even though during his inaugural speech he said that he was going to help with climate change. I also see why the governments don't like this Act though, because it would mean that our government would have to pay the fees to the European Union.
Connection: This bill was signed into law by the President after going through both Senate and the House of Representatives.
National security Midey
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/federal-court-says-it-cant-overturn-obamas-national-security-ban-on-china-wind-farm/2013/02/22/88312356-7d48-11e2-9073-e9dda4ac6a66_story.html
Summary: This article is about a judge, Amy Berman Jackson, saying that she can not revoke Obama's decision to a Chinese company’s purchase of four wind farm projects in the vicinity of a U.S. naval facility’s restricted airspace. She said that she can't just go and overturn it but the company, Ralls corporation, does have the right to have a hearing with president Obama about why he made this decision. In September Obama ordered Ralls corporation, a company owned by Chinese nationals, to divest its interest in the wind farms. The wind farm sites are all in the vicinity of restricted air space near the Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility Boardman. The administration cites unspecified national security risks as the reason for blocking the transaction. The CEO promised he would never do anything that threatens national security. Jackson announced that she does not have the power to get involved on the presidents decision making on this issue. She also said (the law) “is not the least bit ambiguous about the role of the courts: ‘The actions of the president, and the findings of the president, shall not be subject to judicial review,’”. Because they did not like Obama's decision they argued that the Due process clause entitles them to an opportunity to be heard and hear the reasons for Obama's decision.
Connection/Reaction: This was actually kinda interesting because of Obama's decisions is being questioned. This is the presidents decision and this is to help protect our country. They could easily begin to get inside of the U.S. so that if they want to attack they will have more information then before and it would make their attack much easier and successful. This connects to the class because with the checks and balances we have, the president should have equal power with the other branches. This article is showing that the judicial branch thinks they have less power and can't get involved.
enviroment Isaac Frantz
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/interior-secretary-nomination-becomes-embroiled-in-fight-over-alaska-refuge/2013/02/24/05ce7fc0-7d67-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html
In this article it talks about a proposed plan to create a gravel road, that would connect two cites, through a wildlife preserve. The wildlife preserve is a stoppibg point where almost every Pacific black brant, a sea goose, in the world stops on its way down to its winter home in mexico. Enviromentalists say a road would cause unneeded noise and pollution that woupd disrupt the ecosyste. Those in favor of the road say that the smaller of the two towns, King Cove, lacks an all season airport and the road would provide safer travel to the all season airport in Cold Bay. As of now, King Cove residents rely on air and marine travel to get across the bay . Still, enviromental advocates say that a road would be no less dangerous than flying in icy conditions and maintaining the road would be dangerous and expensive
This is an interestin topic yhat steps away from the political side of politics and into the enviromental side of it. On one hand, a road would provide another method to travel and get supplies to the residents of King Cove. On the other hand, the proposed road would run right through the heart of the refuge and may disrupt the migratory patterns of a rare bird. Personally, I dont think they should build the road. In the last thirty years they have had only eleven people die in plane crashes going across the bay, ten of whom were on two flights in the early eighties. Flyong methods have become much safer and reliable in the last thirty years, and the article said that King Cove has the propper medical supplies to sustain people in medical emergencies until transportion is available or the weather has cleared.
In this article it talks about a proposed plan to create a gravel road, that would connect two cites, through a wildlife preserve. The wildlife preserve is a stoppibg point where almost every Pacific black brant, a sea goose, in the world stops on its way down to its winter home in mexico. Enviromentalists say a road would cause unneeded noise and pollution that woupd disrupt the ecosyste. Those in favor of the road say that the smaller of the two towns, King Cove, lacks an all season airport and the road would provide safer travel to the all season airport in Cold Bay. As of now, King Cove residents rely on air and marine travel to get across the bay . Still, enviromental advocates say that a road would be no less dangerous than flying in icy conditions and maintaining the road would be dangerous and expensive
This is an interestin topic yhat steps away from the political side of politics and into the enviromental side of it. On one hand, a road would provide another method to travel and get supplies to the residents of King Cove. On the other hand, the proposed road would run right through the heart of the refuge and may disrupt the migratory patterns of a rare bird. Personally, I dont think they should build the road. In the last thirty years they have had only eleven people die in plane crashes going across the bay, ten of whom were on two flights in the early eighties. Flyong methods have become much safer and reliable in the last thirty years, and the article said that King Cove has the propper medical supplies to sustain people in medical emergencies until transportion is available or the weather has cleared.
Monday, February 25, 2013
burroughs eco
http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/25/news/economy/spending-cuts/index.html?iid=HP_LN
this article is about the possible shutdown of the government if a funding level is not passed. If lawmakers do not agree to new levels by march 28 and remain closed until congress reaches a deal. the only services that would remain would me human safety related. there is a possibility that republicans could quickly pass a continuing resolution for six months until the sequester kicks in. democrats sign on and decide to fight for a replacement to the automatic cuts later.
i think its starting to get ridiculous that congress wont agree on anything to help this country. they need to get something passed that will avoid the government from shutting down and not just put it off either. this connects to the class by when we talked about the government and the democrats and republicans having to vote on stuff to get passed.
this article is about the possible shutdown of the government if a funding level is not passed. If lawmakers do not agree to new levels by march 28 and remain closed until congress reaches a deal. the only services that would remain would me human safety related. there is a possibility that republicans could quickly pass a continuing resolution for six months until the sequester kicks in. democrats sign on and decide to fight for a replacement to the automatic cuts later.
i think its starting to get ridiculous that congress wont agree on anything to help this country. they need to get something passed that will avoid the government from shutting down and not just put it off either. this connects to the class by when we talked about the government and the democrats and republicans having to vote on stuff to get passed.
Logan Yingling National Security
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mccain-renews-threat-to-hold-up-brennan-confirmation-to-cia-post/2013/02/24/d150ade2-7e9f-11e2-8074-b26a871b165a_story.html
Summary:
This article is about Congress' opposition/hold on nominations for Defense Secretary, who are Chuck Hagel and John Brennan. Sen. McCain has threatened another hold, in order to clear some issues regarding torture and Benghazi. Sen. McCain says his hold is to insure the American people get an official who they deserve, and who is well suited for the job.
Reaction:
I like they idea of a hold because it is not just procrastinating, or putting something off, like a filibuster. Rather it delays something in order to establish a better situation for the U.S. I also am interested to see what is said about the torture. I think if a person is known to be a terrorist, then the U.S. has some flexibility to do what is necessary. I think it should also take some precedence over other policy agenda issues, such as the new fiscal deadline, we can't be rich if we are dead. However, it should take precedence if we are in dire national security situations, in which we are not currently.
Connection:
This relates to class because it talks about the Complications concerning nominations on behalf of the President, such as holds and overall controversy. It also talks about votes required in order to pass a proposal, and committees concerning the proposal.
National Security -- Hale
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/chinese-cyber-attacks-robust-response-needed
This article speaks to a different kind of National Security threat. Not necessarily a threat that we can take care of with guns-a-blazing, but rather a threat to our cyber space. Recently, a third party security firm traced a cyber threat back to China. The issue is that the hackers are acting with Chinese governmental support to engage in corporate espionage. The hackers are observing how the American market works with large corporations, namely Coca-Cola, and attempting to replicate the process in China. The article mandates a reaction, in one of four ways. The most realistic and promising of the four solutions is to create a broad response involving multiple countries. This gives the advantage of numbers and displays to China that our cyber security is not something to be taken lightly.
I think that this is a particularly interesting topic for our national security because it is not necessarily something that we can solve simply by deploying a couple hundred troops to extract enemy combatants. I also think that it is particularly important for us to involve the other OECD countries that have been targeted by the Chinese hackers as well. As long as communication can be maintained and the alliance stays strong, the Chinese will not be able to continue the cyber warfare. This is particularly relevant to the President's decision making. Though he has the power to deploy troops whenever and wherever he chooses, this is a peculiar situation where he will have to involve other members, potentially from his cabinet or a third party, to advise him on what the right path will be to maintain our national security.
This article speaks to a different kind of National Security threat. Not necessarily a threat that we can take care of with guns-a-blazing, but rather a threat to our cyber space. Recently, a third party security firm traced a cyber threat back to China. The issue is that the hackers are acting with Chinese governmental support to engage in corporate espionage. The hackers are observing how the American market works with large corporations, namely Coca-Cola, and attempting to replicate the process in China. The article mandates a reaction, in one of four ways. The most realistic and promising of the four solutions is to create a broad response involving multiple countries. This gives the advantage of numbers and displays to China that our cyber security is not something to be taken lightly.
I think that this is a particularly interesting topic for our national security because it is not necessarily something that we can solve simply by deploying a couple hundred troops to extract enemy combatants. I also think that it is particularly important for us to involve the other OECD countries that have been targeted by the Chinese hackers as well. As long as communication can be maintained and the alliance stays strong, the Chinese will not be able to continue the cyber warfare. This is particularly relevant to the President's decision making. Though he has the power to deploy troops whenever and wherever he chooses, this is a peculiar situation where he will have to involve other members, potentially from his cabinet or a third party, to advise him on what the right path will be to maintain our national security.
Economy Belcher
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/budget-cuts-economic-growth_n_2756836.html
This article is about budget cuts and how they will affect the on jobs and the housing market. They first did a survey on weather or not the tax cut would help and 95% of the economist polled said it would cut into GDP. The government would do this to help keep our 2.4% economy growth this year and they believe it would help the fiscal cliff problem. They said that in the long run it would stop the fiscal cliff from getting any worse and lower our jobless rate of 7.9%. It is projected to also help the housing market go 14.8%. This relates to class all the way back when we started to talk about agendas and agenda setting. This has been on Obamas agenda since he came to office and got re elected and now he is finally acting on it.
My reaction to this is that i don't think it will have that big of an effect on the fiscal cliff as they think. I believe it could back fire and end up just being another bad spending cut that just ultimatly loses jobs and doesnt help get them back. I am also with the economist on that it will cut into our GDP. I do like that if it does succeed it is projected to save $1.09 trillion by 2014 and that would get use back to equal for Obama first term spending. OverallI believe if we are on a steady increase that , "if it aint broke dont fix it", so we should just stay the same before we get into to big of a whole.
This article is about budget cuts and how they will affect the on jobs and the housing market. They first did a survey on weather or not the tax cut would help and 95% of the economist polled said it would cut into GDP. The government would do this to help keep our 2.4% economy growth this year and they believe it would help the fiscal cliff problem. They said that in the long run it would stop the fiscal cliff from getting any worse and lower our jobless rate of 7.9%. It is projected to also help the housing market go 14.8%. This relates to class all the way back when we started to talk about agendas and agenda setting. This has been on Obamas agenda since he came to office and got re elected and now he is finally acting on it.
My reaction to this is that i don't think it will have that big of an effect on the fiscal cliff as they think. I believe it could back fire and end up just being another bad spending cut that just ultimatly loses jobs and doesnt help get them back. I am also with the economist on that it will cut into our GDP. I do like that if it does succeed it is projected to save $1.09 trillion by 2014 and that would get use back to equal for Obama first term spending. OverallI believe if we are on a steady increase that , "if it aint broke dont fix it", so we should just stay the same before we get into to big of a whole.
National Security - Haley Zap
http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/14/gop-senators-may-delay-hagel-vote-over-benghazi/
This article is from a little over a week ago. Obama nominated Chuck Hagel to be his defense secretary. Congress is not so agreeing with his decision and the votes right now are 55-45 in Hagel's favor but the Democrats need 5 more votes to get him appointed. Although Hagel is a Republican, his fellow party members are wary about his record of being hesitant to send troops to places. The Democrats see him as a guy who looks out for troops and their well-being. Republicans refuse to consider him until White House gives them more information about what Obama was doing on the night of the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. If it looks like the Republicans might lose this one, their is talk of a potential hold.
I would definitely want to place a hold on Hagel if I was the Republicans. He doesn't seem to moderate in his military opinions so he probably isn't the best guy for the job. The president may be better off choosing someone else that the majority of both parties can agree on.
This is pretty much exactly what we've been talking about in class so I was excited to find this article!! It shows the power that Congress has over who the President appoints and also how Congress can use a hold/filibuster to support the minority.
This article is from a little over a week ago. Obama nominated Chuck Hagel to be his defense secretary. Congress is not so agreeing with his decision and the votes right now are 55-45 in Hagel's favor but the Democrats need 5 more votes to get him appointed. Although Hagel is a Republican, his fellow party members are wary about his record of being hesitant to send troops to places. The Democrats see him as a guy who looks out for troops and their well-being. Republicans refuse to consider him until White House gives them more information about what Obama was doing on the night of the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. If it looks like the Republicans might lose this one, their is talk of a potential hold.
I would definitely want to place a hold on Hagel if I was the Republicans. He doesn't seem to moderate in his military opinions so he probably isn't the best guy for the job. The president may be better off choosing someone else that the majority of both parties can agree on.
This is pretty much exactly what we've been talking about in class so I was excited to find this article!! It shows the power that Congress has over who the President appoints and also how Congress can use a hold/filibuster to support the minority.
Social Welfare- Kaylie Barnett
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/sunday-review/the-trap-of-supplemental-security-income.html?ref=welfareus&_r=0
Summary- This article is about the Supplemental Security Income. This government welfare is given to people with disablilities who cannot work. The governement spends about $60.1 billion to help 9.9 million people. It talks about how there has been a lot of talk about social security and Medicare but nothing about SSI. The cost is rising as the economic status of disabled people decline. There is problems with this program, however. The man talked about in this article has a blood disease that can put him in the hospital for weeks. It's hard to keep a full-time job. He is given $506 a month by the government and is allowed to make $85 a month. If he goes past that, his paycheck is reduced and if he makes more than $1,097, he is no longer eligible. He is also not allowed more than $2,000 in the bank at one time. This makes it really hard to have a normal life. 70% of people with disablilities live in poverty.
Connection- I have mixed feelings about this. I think the restrictions are a good thing, but I also think they aren't. It keeps people from just trying to get more money, but at the same time, it really makes life difficult. These people want to work but sometimes their illnesses get in the way and they can't make enough to live off of. It would be really hard to find a happy medium but I think they should try. This connects to the class because it affects many Americans. The government have helped 9.9 million people just with disablilities. They have spent billions of dollars trying to help these people because they can't help themselves. Of all the people with disablilities, 70% of them live in poverty and that's a strain on the nation. There's new health care bill coming out that is hopefully going to take some of the burden off of those people.
Summary- This article is about the Supplemental Security Income. This government welfare is given to people with disablilities who cannot work. The governement spends about $60.1 billion to help 9.9 million people. It talks about how there has been a lot of talk about social security and Medicare but nothing about SSI. The cost is rising as the economic status of disabled people decline. There is problems with this program, however. The man talked about in this article has a blood disease that can put him in the hospital for weeks. It's hard to keep a full-time job. He is given $506 a month by the government and is allowed to make $85 a month. If he goes past that, his paycheck is reduced and if he makes more than $1,097, he is no longer eligible. He is also not allowed more than $2,000 in the bank at one time. This makes it really hard to have a normal life. 70% of people with disablilities live in poverty.
Connection- I have mixed feelings about this. I think the restrictions are a good thing, but I also think they aren't. It keeps people from just trying to get more money, but at the same time, it really makes life difficult. These people want to work but sometimes their illnesses get in the way and they can't make enough to live off of. It would be really hard to find a happy medium but I think they should try. This connects to the class because it affects many Americans. The government have helped 9.9 million people just with disablilities. They have spent billions of dollars trying to help these people because they can't help themselves. Of all the people with disablilities, 70% of them live in poverty and that's a strain on the nation. There's new health care bill coming out that is hopefully going to take some of the burden off of those people.
Health Care and the Environment - Taylor Amey
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-heck/us-health-care_b_2761004.html
Many Americans have what is called "greatest-country-in-the-world syndrome" where an individual has the mindset that no matter what, the United States is the greatest country in the world in anything. Many today, even our very politicians on Capitol Hill, still believe America has the finest health care system in the world, including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Senate's Minority Leader. However, the evidence would like to differ. For example, the United States has had a lower life expectancy than most peer countries for a long time. In the article, there are tons of other facts as wel about how much of a failure the United States health care system is.
This is the attitude of Americans that I really despise the most: the idiots out there who scream and shout to the world "AMURRICA #1!". Yeah...at teen pregnancy maybe. I don't deny that members of Congress see the dark side of our health care system but some people like Sen. McConnell need to wake up and realize that there needs to be some sort of reform with the status quo. This relates to government because it is a government's job to protect their citizens from things that are beyond their control and if our health care is not doing so well then it must do something otherwise things will only get worse and worse.
Many Americans have what is called "greatest-country-in-the-world syndrome" where an individual has the mindset that no matter what, the United States is the greatest country in the world in anything. Many today, even our very politicians on Capitol Hill, still believe America has the finest health care system in the world, including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Senate's Minority Leader. However, the evidence would like to differ. For example, the United States has had a lower life expectancy than most peer countries for a long time. In the article, there are tons of other facts as wel about how much of a failure the United States health care system is.
This is the attitude of Americans that I really despise the most: the idiots out there who scream and shout to the world "AMURRICA #1!". Yeah...at teen pregnancy maybe. I don't deny that members of Congress see the dark side of our health care system but some people like Sen. McConnell need to wake up and realize that there needs to be some sort of reform with the status quo. This relates to government because it is a government's job to protect their citizens from things that are beyond their control and if our health care is not doing so well then it must do something otherwise things will only get worse and worse.
National Security-Stephanie Moore
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/16nsa.html?ref=nationalsecurityagency&_r=0
Summary: This is a news article about a possible violation of americans privacy. The national security agency has used wiretapping and intercepting e-mails that are claimed tobe beyond the legal limits. The government fears that a possible abuse of power will force legitimate uses of wire-tapping to not be taken seriously. Several lawyers say the NSA has had an "overcollection" of phone calls and e-mails that invade the privacy given to citizens. It is believed this was all set off by the Bush administration due to the rules set around the time of the 9/11 attack.
Reaction and Connection: My reaction to this is pretty shocked. Of course I knew that the government had the authority to listen to phone conversations and read emails but I never thought it would be a problem of overstepping boundaries. I think the governments needs to only do this is a case where it is evidently needed, not just because. This connects to our court case that we learned in litigant epitaphs. In Katz v. United States, it was deemed that a public payphone is not subject to a wiretapping. This suprises me because I would think that the government would not be able to read a privat email because there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Summary: This is a news article about a possible violation of americans privacy. The national security agency has used wiretapping and intercepting e-mails that are claimed tobe beyond the legal limits. The government fears that a possible abuse of power will force legitimate uses of wire-tapping to not be taken seriously. Several lawyers say the NSA has had an "overcollection" of phone calls and e-mails that invade the privacy given to citizens. It is believed this was all set off by the Bush administration due to the rules set around the time of the 9/11 attack.
Reaction and Connection: My reaction to this is pretty shocked. Of course I knew that the government had the authority to listen to phone conversations and read emails but I never thought it would be a problem of overstepping boundaries. I think the governments needs to only do this is a case where it is evidently needed, not just because. This connects to our court case that we learned in litigant epitaphs. In Katz v. United States, it was deemed that a public payphone is not subject to a wiretapping. This suprises me because I would think that the government would not be able to read a privat email because there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Heiderscheit - Economy
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sequester-20130225,0,2963057.story
In the article I read, titled As federal cuts near, White House trades blame with Republicans, the upcoming 'sequester.' This is term being used to describe the massive across the board spending cuts for the US. The weird thing is, no one is even for this sequester. Both Republicans and Democrats agree that this plan to cut $85 billion dollars in government programs is going to largely damage the American people/economy. The only problem is that no one seems capable of coming up with any better plans. On one side, Democrats have made it clear that we should dump the plan and raise taxes to generate more funds. The Republicans, heavily opposed to raising taxes of any kind, believe we need a new plan all together. The White House is being criticized for spending their time campaigning the negative effects of the sequester to the American people as opposed to actually taking steps to solve the problem. Polls show that the negative effects of the sequester will be blaimed mainly on the Republican party in the eyes of the American people. However, Republicans such as Senator John McCain have already reached out to the president and asked him to pull congress together and attempt to fix this potential disaster.
Reading this article sort of made me think 'Wow, just another problem with our country.' All I ever hear or read about are upcoming troubles with the US economy. Many of them seem like they are inevitable. However, this time, I do not believe that is the case. There has to be a better way to fix things than what is described in this plan. The article discussed how the $600 taken from the National Aviation Administration will greatly reduce travel speed. Even worse, a potential of 40,000 teacher will lose their jobs with the education cuts. Both sides agree that this is a horrible plan. In the past week, major members from both parties have used the word 'stupid' to describe it. So why is it still happening? Perhaps if both sides stopped using all of their efforts to make sure the opposing party would be blamed when the sequester goes into effect, they could actually come up with something better to replace it. That's looking at something really complicated in simple terms, I understand, but it still seems like all of those people in Washington desperate to fix our economy should be a able to come up with something better than this 'stupid' sequester.
Class Connection: The article mentions that the Democrats made sure that cutting for the military would be the most prominent section of the cuts. They hoped this would sway Republicans from voting for the sequester. This is sort of like the opposite of pork in a way. They're hoping that this extra money will, instead of draw people to the bill, change their minds about it.
In the article I read, titled As federal cuts near, White House trades blame with Republicans, the upcoming 'sequester.' This is term being used to describe the massive across the board spending cuts for the US. The weird thing is, no one is even for this sequester. Both Republicans and Democrats agree that this plan to cut $85 billion dollars in government programs is going to largely damage the American people/economy. The only problem is that no one seems capable of coming up with any better plans. On one side, Democrats have made it clear that we should dump the plan and raise taxes to generate more funds. The Republicans, heavily opposed to raising taxes of any kind, believe we need a new plan all together. The White House is being criticized for spending their time campaigning the negative effects of the sequester to the American people as opposed to actually taking steps to solve the problem. Polls show that the negative effects of the sequester will be blaimed mainly on the Republican party in the eyes of the American people. However, Republicans such as Senator John McCain have already reached out to the president and asked him to pull congress together and attempt to fix this potential disaster.
Reading this article sort of made me think 'Wow, just another problem with our country.' All I ever hear or read about are upcoming troubles with the US economy. Many of them seem like they are inevitable. However, this time, I do not believe that is the case. There has to be a better way to fix things than what is described in this plan. The article discussed how the $600 taken from the National Aviation Administration will greatly reduce travel speed. Even worse, a potential of 40,000 teacher will lose their jobs with the education cuts. Both sides agree that this is a horrible plan. In the past week, major members from both parties have used the word 'stupid' to describe it. So why is it still happening? Perhaps if both sides stopped using all of their efforts to make sure the opposing party would be blamed when the sequester goes into effect, they could actually come up with something better to replace it. That's looking at something really complicated in simple terms, I understand, but it still seems like all of those people in Washington desperate to fix our economy should be a able to come up with something better than this 'stupid' sequester.
Class Connection: The article mentions that the Democrats made sure that cutting for the military would be the most prominent section of the cuts. They hoped this would sway Republicans from voting for the sequester. This is sort of like the opposite of pork in a way. They're hoping that this extra money will, instead of draw people to the bill, change their minds about it.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Environment
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/on-our-radar-a-clean-air-act-for-china/?ref=earth
http://news.discovery.com/earth/plants/china-urban-air-kills-rurual-plants-130118.htm
Summary: Basically, this article is about how China has polluted air and dense smog has taken over for the second time in two weeks. Their plane flights are getting cancelled and their factories are being shut down. The Chinese want to adopt a clean air act. Scientists have said they have succeeded in boring down into Lake Whillans and removed samples. Researchers are taking the samples and are processing them to understand the microbial life.
Reaction: It is very unfortunate that China is facing this problem, but their use of fossil fuels is the problem. They use them as their main energy source and the toxic fumes wipe out their crops and the fumes also affect their health. The Chinese government needs to take better care of its people. Also, China needs to stop using these fossil fuels to stop the pollution of the food their citizens consume. Maybe then, people will stop dying. In Beijing, their smog problem even reached headlines. Zheng Yuanjie, a Chinese Writer, blogged that "the air smells like sulfur perfume, as the capital city currently looks like a poisonous huge gas can,". This problem needs to be resolved as quickly as possible.
enviorment- James Robinson
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/business/energy-environment/obamas-keystone-pipeline-decision-risks-new-problems-either-way.html?ref=earth&_r=0
In this article what is talked about is Obama trying to make a choice where he should eather pass the bill to make a pipeline through keystone or to not. If he does choice to then Canada will not be mad at America and this will make a stronger relationship between us. Canada is our biggest tradeing partner and is our allie in the war against terror. Some reasons he mite not be doing it is because enviromental advocates do not want this to happen. they were a big support in his candidacy and he is not sure because of that if he should proceed to pass the bill. They would be helping out Canada a lot by doing this pumping more than 700,000 barrles a day.
I think that it would be a good idea to put the pipeline because canada needs the oil and i think we should help them then. the enviorment people do have good points but i still think that canada needs it more because if america was in their place. I would hope the canada would do the same and help us out. though it does seem like we are giving them a lot of oil and that maybe we could give them a little less. my main worrie is that because we are giving them so much oil that it would make the price go up here in america. the connect to our class is the mandate theory. Obama said that he would help out more on the enviorment and now the enviorment advocates think that it is his time now to step up and say no to the pipeline and follow through what he said he would do.
In this article what is talked about is Obama trying to make a choice where he should eather pass the bill to make a pipeline through keystone or to not. If he does choice to then Canada will not be mad at America and this will make a stronger relationship between us. Canada is our biggest tradeing partner and is our allie in the war against terror. Some reasons he mite not be doing it is because enviromental advocates do not want this to happen. they were a big support in his candidacy and he is not sure because of that if he should proceed to pass the bill. They would be helping out Canada a lot by doing this pumping more than 700,000 barrles a day.
I think that it would be a good idea to put the pipeline because canada needs the oil and i think we should help them then. the enviorment people do have good points but i still think that canada needs it more because if america was in their place. I would hope the canada would do the same and help us out. though it does seem like we are giving them a lot of oil and that maybe we could give them a little less. my main worrie is that because we are giving them so much oil that it would make the price go up here in america. the connect to our class is the mandate theory. Obama said that he would help out more on the enviorment and now the enviorment advocates think that it is his time now to step up and say no to the pipeline and follow through what he said he would do.
Enviroment - Haley Zap
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/business/supreme-court-to-hear-monsanto-seed-patent-case.html?ref=earth&_r=0
An interesting case is being put to question by the Supreme Court. We learned a little bit about this in AP Human Geo, but this goes more in depth. A small Indiana farmer is asking the question, do the patents on seeds — or other things that can self-replicate — extend beyond the first generation of the products? You see, farmers can't legally use the seeds that they produce from their crops, they must buy new ones from genetically modifying companies like Monsanto every year. The arguement over whether the patent for genetically modified seeds can require farmers not to reuse them is a trick and confusing one. We debated it in Geo and it was a difficult concept to grasp.
I honestly can't figure out which side I am on here. I feel like farmers should be able to use the seeds produced from their crops, but then I also see how companies have a legal right on their product.
This relates to class because it is a major court case that will affect other decisions in the future like in our litigant epitaphs. It will most likely have an affect on the patent of computer software based upon what the courts decision is. Also, interest groups have been putting in briefs supporting Monsanto or the farmer. The Software Alliance, universities, and The American Soybean Association are all getting involved.
An interesting case is being put to question by the Supreme Court. We learned a little bit about this in AP Human Geo, but this goes more in depth. A small Indiana farmer is asking the question, do the patents on seeds — or other things that can self-replicate — extend beyond the first generation of the products? You see, farmers can't legally use the seeds that they produce from their crops, they must buy new ones from genetically modifying companies like Monsanto every year. The arguement over whether the patent for genetically modified seeds can require farmers not to reuse them is a trick and confusing one. We debated it in Geo and it was a difficult concept to grasp.
I honestly can't figure out which side I am on here. I feel like farmers should be able to use the seeds produced from their crops, but then I also see how companies have a legal right on their product.
This relates to class because it is a major court case that will affect other decisions in the future like in our litigant epitaphs. It will most likely have an affect on the patent of computer software based upon what the courts decision is. Also, interest groups have been putting in briefs supporting Monsanto or the farmer. The Software Alliance, universities, and The American Soybean Association are all getting involved.
Economy Isaac Frantz
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2013/02/18/967a0608-785c-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story_1.html
This article is aboyt what congress is doing about the new fiscal cliff that is soon approaching. The article says that for the last few budget deadlines congress has been using the "kick the can" method to push the deadline further down the road. It does say that when the deadline is pushed away there are cuts and taxes being put in place that bring in some money, but it seems to be insignificant compared to the changes that need to be made in order to bring the deficit under control.
I think this article sheds a lot of truth on the ways congress has been convincing themselves that they've found a solution when they are doing nothing of the sort. It seems that we've dug purselves into a hole that we may never be able to get out of. It seems to me that congress just needs to put their party aside and do what is best for the country, which seems to be anything besides what they are doing now. This relates to class because the article deals with money and all aspects of politics revolve around money.
This article is aboyt what congress is doing about the new fiscal cliff that is soon approaching. The article says that for the last few budget deadlines congress has been using the "kick the can" method to push the deadline further down the road. It does say that when the deadline is pushed away there are cuts and taxes being put in place that bring in some money, but it seems to be insignificant compared to the changes that need to be made in order to bring the deficit under control.
I think this article sheds a lot of truth on the ways congress has been convincing themselves that they've found a solution when they are doing nothing of the sort. It seems that we've dug purselves into a hole that we may never be able to get out of. It seems to me that congress just needs to put their party aside and do what is best for the country, which seems to be anything besides what they are doing now. This relates to class because the article deals with money and all aspects of politics revolve around money.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Social Welfare - Taylor Amey
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/18/come-to-us-live-on-dole-senator-says-immigration-stats-show-welfare-rules-not/
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama is grilling the Obama administration about an accusation that they are not enforcing a law that prevents the government from giving out welfare to illegal immigrants and have them only live on the funds from the government. Sessions' point is if there is to be new immigration reform then it must take into account the lack of enforcement of this law. The Senator brought up statistics from the Department of Homeland Security which states that most known illegal immigrants are not turned away by the federal government for funds. Other statistics have shown that the rate of illegal immigrant households with at least one government aid program is at 36 percent, compared to 23 percent for other households.
Ok this claim already looks bad when Fox News is covering you. However, I would say that since the illegal immigrants aren't citizens, I would probably say that they shouldn't be held to the same benefits as American citizens, especially if they're not paying their dues by chipping into the fund itself. It just isn't fair towards the other people living inside the United States. This doesn't mean that I'm not totally against illegal immigrants becoming citizens. I just think that if they want to become a citizen and live in the United States, you can get your federal funds as long as you pay the taxes that everyone else does. This directly connects to government as the Department of Homeland Security and the welfare programs are both ran by the United States government.
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama is grilling the Obama administration about an accusation that they are not enforcing a law that prevents the government from giving out welfare to illegal immigrants and have them only live on the funds from the government. Sessions' point is if there is to be new immigration reform then it must take into account the lack of enforcement of this law. The Senator brought up statistics from the Department of Homeland Security which states that most known illegal immigrants are not turned away by the federal government for funds. Other statistics have shown that the rate of illegal immigrant households with at least one government aid program is at 36 percent, compared to 23 percent for other households.
Ok this claim already looks bad when Fox News is covering you. However, I would say that since the illegal immigrants aren't citizens, I would probably say that they shouldn't be held to the same benefits as American citizens, especially if they're not paying their dues by chipping into the fund itself. It just isn't fair towards the other people living inside the United States. This doesn't mean that I'm not totally against illegal immigrants becoming citizens. I just think that if they want to become a citizen and live in the United States, you can get your federal funds as long as you pay the taxes that everyone else does. This directly connects to government as the Department of Homeland Security and the welfare programs are both ran by the United States government.
Healthcare - Seaba
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/health-cares-good-news/
Summary: Healthcare hasn't had any good news in a while. Most recent healthcare news has lead some to believe that the healthcare reform law is failing and as a result healthcare costs are going up. Though this is mostly true the fact is that the rate at which the spending grows per year is declineing. Over the last tree years medicare spending per person has grown 1.3 percent slower than growth in the over all economy. If the growth of spending is decelerating then why are premiums increaseing? Insurance companies are uncertain about the future and therefore they are cautious. The cautious approach for them is to increase revenue and profits in the short term as much as possible in case Obamacare lowers them in the long term. This fear should dissipate and premiums should come down once the exchanges begin to facilitate competition. There is more good news such as competetive bidding reforms. Where people can bid to set prices on medical supplies, hospitial beds, and wheelchairs.
Reaction: I think that it is very good news that medicare spending is decreasing. I also think it is smart to facilitate compeptition, because competetition leads to progress, at least that is how the saying goes. I also think that the bidding to set the prices for medical supplies and such is smart, because it is shown to have lowered prices for many things so that anyone can afford what they need.
Connection: Obamacare went through the Dynamic legislative process by going through the House of representatives and then the Senate and back to the House and so on until they both agreed on 1 bill and then it went to Obama who signed it into a law.
Summary: Healthcare hasn't had any good news in a while. Most recent healthcare news has lead some to believe that the healthcare reform law is failing and as a result healthcare costs are going up. Though this is mostly true the fact is that the rate at which the spending grows per year is declineing. Over the last tree years medicare spending per person has grown 1.3 percent slower than growth in the over all economy. If the growth of spending is decelerating then why are premiums increaseing? Insurance companies are uncertain about the future and therefore they are cautious. The cautious approach for them is to increase revenue and profits in the short term as much as possible in case Obamacare lowers them in the long term. This fear should dissipate and premiums should come down once the exchanges begin to facilitate competition. There is more good news such as competetive bidding reforms. Where people can bid to set prices on medical supplies, hospitial beds, and wheelchairs.
Reaction: I think that it is very good news that medicare spending is decreasing. I also think it is smart to facilitate compeptition, because competetition leads to progress, at least that is how the saying goes. I also think that the bidding to set the prices for medical supplies and such is smart, because it is shown to have lowered prices for many things so that anyone can afford what they need.
Connection: Obamacare went through the Dynamic legislative process by going through the House of representatives and then the Senate and back to the House and so on until they both agreed on 1 bill and then it went to Obama who signed it into a law.
Midey economics
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/business/economy/income-gains-after-recession-went-mostly-to-top-1.html?ref=economics&_r=0
Summary- This article is about how for the top 1% of people, their incomes have risen more than 11% during the economic recovery. For everybody else, their incomes have dropped an average of .4%. They believe the reason for this is the way people earn their money. The wealthy had a four year boom in the stock market, but for others, high unemployment has held down their incomes. The top 10% of people take about 46.5% of income. Obama talked about the unequal incomes in his State of the Union address and wants to make minimum wage to $9 so that people can live off of it.
Reaction- I don’t think it’s fair that the already rich people get to have their incomes rising, while people in poverty whose wages are declining. I think that the tax increases for the wealthy is a good thing, but the article says there is possibly a way for them to get around it. Also, I think if Congress raises the minimum wage to $9, it’ll probably make everything else more expensive, too. Then we will be in the same situation we are in now. This relates because of the plans Congress plans to put in place. The Affordable Health Care act is going to increase spending to try and help people be able to afford it. They also increased taxes on the wealthy, which may have the wealthy upset with Congress. The incomes aren’t expected to increase anytime soon and that will continue to affect all of us.
Health Care Belcher
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/February/Pages/UK-fat-man-of-Europe-warning.aspx
This article is about Britian and how they are becoming the obese country in Europe. They had several ideas come up to try and stop or limit obesity by not letting fast food places be by schools,only let junk food broadcast after 9pm, and have a tax on sugary drinks.They also try to promote exercising more and more. They are trying to think of an idea because the obese children are costing the NHS 5.2 Billion pounds more.NHS is the UK's version of health care and it starting to go down like the United states.
I thought that, even though this article was not about the U.S, it could still be useful with our obese kids. We could have the fast food away from school by moving business zones, we could also put a tax on sugary drinks. We could not limit the commericals to a certain time because that could be against the freedom of speech. I do believe that we could easily pass the tax on sugary drinks because they are not a necessisary thing to have. This subject of obesity is also on the heatlh care policy agenda a lot . To help get rid of that or get it taken care of an link it to class I believe the president could address the obesity and a congressman/women could propose a bill/law against sugary drinks.
This article is about Britian and how they are becoming the obese country in Europe. They had several ideas come up to try and stop or limit obesity by not letting fast food places be by schools,only let junk food broadcast after 9pm, and have a tax on sugary drinks.They also try to promote exercising more and more. They are trying to think of an idea because the obese children are costing the NHS 5.2 Billion pounds more.NHS is the UK's version of health care and it starting to go down like the United states.
I thought that, even though this article was not about the U.S, it could still be useful with our obese kids. We could have the fast food away from school by moving business zones, we could also put a tax on sugary drinks. We could not limit the commericals to a certain time because that could be against the freedom of speech. I do believe that we could easily pass the tax on sugary drinks because they are not a necessisary thing to have. This subject of obesity is also on the heatlh care policy agenda a lot . To help get rid of that or get it taken care of an link it to class I believe the president could address the obesity and a congressman/women could propose a bill/law against sugary drinks.
National Security Bryce Melton
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/07/us/politics/obama-embraces-national-security-as-campaign-issue.html?_r=0
Obama was starting to all of the sudden raise the awareness of national security. He's saying that what Mitt wanted could take our country back to the time of how it was during the Iraq war. Obama was also saying that he was going to have writers publish articles about how Romney was on both sides of many major issues going on. Obama really wanted to point out how un-involved the republican party was with issues on terrorism and the Iraq war being ended. Writers believe that national security issues could help the democrats because of what Obama has accomplished. Obama's position on foreign policy is said to be a lot stronger than any other recent candidate. Each party tried to attack each other back and forth on issues with foreign nations, but Obama's campaign came out on top. However, Mitts national security surrogate, who was George Bush's surrogate, believed that there were plenty of places to attack Obama's policies.
I believe that Obama has done a numerous amount of things for our national security that have been very beneficial for us. If Bin Laden and Qaddafi were still alive who knows what kind of plans could be in process right now. I believe that Obama has helped the Democratic party come out stronger than the Republican party majorly because the things he has done over the years with wars and other countries. Using the evidence on the republic party not being very involved with foreign policy has helped him in both presidential elections that he has been in. I really think that through this term he is in now that he will continue to put focus on foreign policies, which will show the importance of it to future candidates.
National Security -- Hale
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2013/2/failing-to-fund-defense-will-have-consequences
This article begins with an anecdote referring to the necessity of two ships in the Persian Gulf. Though, due to spending cuts, one of these ships must be removed and repositioned elsewhere in the world. While this may seem trivial, the impact of spending cuts on our defense budget is significantly more profound. Back in 2010, deliberation began on the defense budget. Since then plans have been made to cut over $100 billion dollars over the next ten years. Former and current Secretaries of Defense have states that the cuts are crippling to the military. The article concludes by speaking to the purpose of our military, to manage risk. With these massive cuts, managing risk in the Persian Gulf will seem minor to the difficulty of managing risk elsewhere in the world.
I think that it is absolutely necessary to constantly review all of the different parts of the government's budget to find areas where the excess can be trimmed. However, I think that the defense budget is something that is particularly necessary to fund. Simply announcing massive cuts to the military is devastating. It is not just Americans who know about our government's spending, but rather the whole world has an eye on our nation, observing for weak spots. Spending cuts are good, but cuts that require the loss of 50 to 60 ships deployed across the world is problematic.
Before the cuts had to be made, there was extensive debate in Congress. Interest groups and PACs were vying for politicians to make their voices heard to ensure that the budget either did or did not get cut. The cuts affect interest groups representing those who labor to manufacture military goods. The amount of influence each group has on Congress is usually directly related to the funding that each of the groups have as well. Additionally, a skyrocketing military budget is often due to the rally around the flag mindset. We have a strong sense of nationalism as a country, and so when America goes to war, huge funds are allocated to ensuring that our troops are safe and our freedoms are protected.
This article begins with an anecdote referring to the necessity of two ships in the Persian Gulf. Though, due to spending cuts, one of these ships must be removed and repositioned elsewhere in the world. While this may seem trivial, the impact of spending cuts on our defense budget is significantly more profound. Back in 2010, deliberation began on the defense budget. Since then plans have been made to cut over $100 billion dollars over the next ten years. Former and current Secretaries of Defense have states that the cuts are crippling to the military. The article concludes by speaking to the purpose of our military, to manage risk. With these massive cuts, managing risk in the Persian Gulf will seem minor to the difficulty of managing risk elsewhere in the world.
I think that it is absolutely necessary to constantly review all of the different parts of the government's budget to find areas where the excess can be trimmed. However, I think that the defense budget is something that is particularly necessary to fund. Simply announcing massive cuts to the military is devastating. It is not just Americans who know about our government's spending, but rather the whole world has an eye on our nation, observing for weak spots. Spending cuts are good, but cuts that require the loss of 50 to 60 ships deployed across the world is problematic.
Before the cuts had to be made, there was extensive debate in Congress. Interest groups and PACs were vying for politicians to make their voices heard to ensure that the budget either did or did not get cut. The cuts affect interest groups representing those who labor to manufacture military goods. The amount of influence each group has on Congress is usually directly related to the funding that each of the groups have as well. Additionally, a skyrocketing military budget is often due to the rally around the flag mindset. We have a strong sense of nationalism as a country, and so when America goes to war, huge funds are allocated to ensuring that our troops are safe and our freedoms are protected.
National Security- Kranovich
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/17/chuck-hagels-critics-say-defense-nominee-will-be-c/
This article talks about the president's nomination of Chuck Hagel as the defense secretary and the trouble he is having with getting him voted in by the Senate. One person who doesn't believe that Hagel is a good choice is John McCain. He feels that Hagel isn't qualified to be the defense secretary but he also doesn't want to hold up the confirmation any longer. It is also believed that he will be too soft on Iran, which is something we really don't want. The reason that these concerns are being brought up is so we can make sure we choose the right man for the job.
My reaction to this is that we do need to find the most qualified man for the job, but this is also a nomination directly from the president so that needs to be taken into consideration. I believe that the republicans putting up a fight on this could be a good thing just so we can make sure he is truly qualified. This connects to the class because when Congress doesn't agree with the president, such as in this case, then a stalemate occurs where neither can get what they want and it becomes deadlocked.
This article talks about the president's nomination of Chuck Hagel as the defense secretary and the trouble he is having with getting him voted in by the Senate. One person who doesn't believe that Hagel is a good choice is John McCain. He feels that Hagel isn't qualified to be the defense secretary but he also doesn't want to hold up the confirmation any longer. It is also believed that he will be too soft on Iran, which is something we really don't want. The reason that these concerns are being brought up is so we can make sure we choose the right man for the job.
My reaction to this is that we do need to find the most qualified man for the job, but this is also a nomination directly from the president so that needs to be taken into consideration. I believe that the republicans putting up a fight on this could be a good thing just so we can make sure he is truly qualified. This connects to the class because when Congress doesn't agree with the president, such as in this case, then a stalemate occurs where neither can get what they want and it becomes deadlocked.
Health Care Logan Yingling
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/hospitals-are-hard-pressed-to-estimate-hip-replacement-costs-study-finds/2013/02/15/8ad7cf0c-76e9-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_story.html
This article is about how few Americans know how much a bone replacement could actually cost, many do not know because few hospital officials may know. According to it, many Americans who need a bone replaced are under the age of 65, and thus may not be covered by Medicare. Because there are so many factors which play into the final cost, a replacement may cost 10x more in differing hospitals, for the same bone replacement.
Reaction/Connection:
It is weird to see such differing prices on the same "product." If a person needs to pay for a replacement, they should know if its $10,000, which may be affordable, or $100,000. My grandmother (who is well over the age of 65) is basically bionic. She has both hips and both knees replaced. It's nice to know she can get the care she needs without paying her entire life savings. Although, how hard can it be to calculate the cost of something? Different options may cause the price to fluctuate, however, once options have been decided it should easy to calculate the price very accurately. Many people may be able to afford a bone, despite age, with Obama care, and other reform. Policy makers may use this and other short comings to shape new policies.
Economics - Heiderscheit
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/business/economy/consumer-prices-unchanged-in-december.html
Summary: The article I read,Economy Ended the Year With Factory Output Up and Inflation Low, was written in mid-January and discusses the positive outlook shown from the way the US economy finished the past year. According to the article, the US's inflation is at a low level, giving consumers more power. Another positive, factory production is at a high, especially in electronics. It is said that because of these improvements, US citizens will have a better chance at taking on the next year (2013)'s expected taxes. It was noted, though, that some of the increased spending was due to Hurricane Sandy.
Summary: The article I read,
National Security-Stephanie Moore
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/18/mit-scientists-forging-new-military-fabric-talks/
This article is about a new idea where soldiers in the field can communicate by talking through their jackets. Scientists at MIT implant a fiber that can detect heat, light, and sound. One use is that soldiers can use the fiber to detect a soldier they don't know. If the fibers react to one another it would verify the soldier is true.
Reaction and Connection: I think these fibers are a great idea and are a good invention as well. These would prove very beneficial to our troops. Once fully developed they could be a huge asset to security so I feel excited about this new idea. This connects to our course because it's almost like a bill trying to get passed. The new idea is introduced and over time it is continually tweaked and changed for the perfect product. Once it's ready it's then introuced for the use of the people.
This article is about a new idea where soldiers in the field can communicate by talking through their jackets. Scientists at MIT implant a fiber that can detect heat, light, and sound. One use is that soldiers can use the fiber to detect a soldier they don't know. If the fibers react to one another it would verify the soldier is true.
Reaction and Connection: I think these fibers are a great idea and are a good invention as well. These would prove very beneficial to our troops. Once fully developed they could be a huge asset to security so I feel excited about this new idea. This connects to our course because it's almost like a bill trying to get passed. The new idea is introduced and over time it is continually tweaked and changed for the perfect product. Once it's ready it's then introuced for the use of the people.
burroughs eco
http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/17/news/economy/federal-worker-furloughs/index.html
This article is about the posibility of federal workers facing furloughs as early as april. 9% of the cuts will come from non defense programs and 13% from defense programs. the agencies have to negotiate with unions which is not expected to be finished till after the beginning of march. after the negotiation agencies still have to give the 30 days notice pushing it until after april. the unions will have the final say on how the furloughs will be implemented. unions will also work to ensure that performance reviews dont reflect work left incomplete due to furloughs. Eventually agencies might not be able to avoid furloughs that would result in things like fewer food inspections in the Agriculture Department.
I think that things like this were bound to happen. The country kept going further and further into debt and did not want to take action until now. Now the country is taking actions that have to be a little more extreme in order to figure out this mess. I think the government is working more towards making the people fix it with tax increase and pay cuts but I think they should cut their own checks too.
This article is about the posibility of federal workers facing furloughs as early as april. 9% of the cuts will come from non defense programs and 13% from defense programs. the agencies have to negotiate with unions which is not expected to be finished till after the beginning of march. after the negotiation agencies still have to give the 30 days notice pushing it until after april. the unions will have the final say on how the furloughs will be implemented. unions will also work to ensure that performance reviews dont reflect work left incomplete due to furloughs. Eventually agencies might not be able to avoid furloughs that would result in things like fewer food inspections in the Agriculture Department.
I think that things like this were bound to happen. The country kept going further and further into debt and did not want to take action until now. Now the country is taking actions that have to be a little more extreme in order to figure out this mess. I think the government is working more towards making the people fix it with tax increase and pay cuts but I think they should cut their own checks too.
Social Welfare- Kaylie Barnett
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-child-welfare-agency-to-provide-deaf-clients-with-technology-interpreters/2013/02/15/a5333614-747a-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_story.html
Summary- This article is about how the Child Welfare Agency has gotten critisicm for alleged discrimination against deaf people. They say they have failed to provide technology for communication. They Child Welfare Agency has now agreed to provide their deaf clients with technology for making phone calls and interpreters. The agreement was made off of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Civil Rights, which will make sure they follow through with the obligations.
Connection- I think it's a good thing that they are doing that but I don't really feel that it was discrimination that caused the lack of help. I think they have a lot to deal with and it wasn't intentional. It's good that it was brought to their attention, though, so that it could be handled and the deaf children can get adequate help. This connects to the class because many kids are going to benefit from this agreement they have made. There is a law that will hopefully put into place to ensure these benefits. Although many people are going to benefit from this, the added technology and interpreters needed are going to be extremely expensive. That may take a huge toll on our government's spending.
Summary- This article is about how the Child Welfare Agency has gotten critisicm for alleged discrimination against deaf people. They say they have failed to provide technology for communication. They Child Welfare Agency has now agreed to provide their deaf clients with technology for making phone calls and interpreters. The agreement was made off of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Civil Rights, which will make sure they follow through with the obligations.
Connection- I think it's a good thing that they are doing that but I don't really feel that it was discrimination that caused the lack of help. I think they have a lot to deal with and it wasn't intentional. It's good that it was brought to their attention, though, so that it could be handled and the deaf children can get adequate help. This connects to the class because many kids are going to benefit from this agreement they have made. There is a law that will hopefully put into place to ensure these benefits. Although many people are going to benefit from this, the added technology and interpreters needed are going to be extremely expensive. That may take a huge toll on our government's spending.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Reaction to State of the Union 2013 EC-Seaba
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/us/politics/obamas-2013-state-of-the-union-address.html?_r=0
The Bipartisan line is mostly back to normal this year with a few exceptions. I find it ironic how President Obama Quote " the constitution makes us not rivals for power, but partners in progess", because in class today we defined "progress" and asked "so what is congress?". Obama: " The government shouldn't make promises we can't keep, but we must keep the promises we have already made!" I agree with the quote, but I still question why the government made promises they couldn't keep in the first place. President Obama also said he wanteded to raise minimum wage to $9 an hour. I don't think this will help at all if we raise paychecks then stores and services will have to raise their prices, and then people will just be paying the same amount proportionatly as they were. As for the mention of Desiline Victor was just Obama trying to gain a little more support through an emotional story that creates simpathy in the people.
The Bipartisan line is mostly back to normal this year with a few exceptions. I find it ironic how President Obama Quote " the constitution makes us not rivals for power, but partners in progess", because in class today we defined "progress" and asked "so what is congress?". Obama: " The government shouldn't make promises we can't keep, but we must keep the promises we have already made!" I agree with the quote, but I still question why the government made promises they couldn't keep in the first place. President Obama also said he wanteded to raise minimum wage to $9 an hour. I don't think this will help at all if we raise paychecks then stores and services will have to raise their prices, and then people will just be paying the same amount proportionatly as they were. As for the mention of Desiline Victor was just Obama trying to gain a little more support through an emotional story that creates simpathy in the people.
Extra Credit:State of the Union-Stephanie Moore
I did not watch the actual event on tv but I did look at the online transcript. I really liked the points made in the speech and some of them even suprised me. For example, we buy more American cars than we have in the past five years and most importanly, our troops are coming home. I think the points made by President Obama were very important to this speech. By pointing out big positives like these he is reassuring people everywhere to restore their faith in not only him but our country. I think my favorite part of the whole speech when he said"...if you work hard and meet your responsibilities, you can get ahead, no matter where you come from...". I think is the perfect message especially given the delicate time dealing with immigration issues. Overall, I think the speech given was very powerful and positive.
Extra Credit: State of the Union- Kaylie Barnett
I was able to watch most of the address but not live. In the president's speech, he touched on many different areas. He talked about about removing around 34,000 troops from Iraq and ending the war by next year. He talked about the need to expand education and better gun laws. He thinks that we need to make big investments to push America forward and that without it, we can't anywhere execpt where we are now. He wants a stronger border and increase the legal immigration. Also, a think i thought was interesting was that he wants to raise minimum wage to $9; an amount enough to live off of. I found that interesting because I think that if minimum wage rises so will inflation and it'll end up being like it is now. I think it's a good idea to end the war because it seems that it's getting nowhere. Also, my blog the other day was about he was expected to talk mostly about expanding the economy because we can't get anywhere with out it. However, he touched on other things such as gun control, immigration, and climate control. It was interesting to see that my article was wrong.
EC Bryce Melton
http://nation.time.com/2013/02/13/afghan-endgame
I wasnt able to watch it live so I read an article from Time which said we are trying so hard to pull troops out of Afghanistan that we are risking over 2,000 troops lives and over half a trillion dollars. Obama wants to take up to 34,000 troops out of there, which would cut the number in a little bit more than half. Obama believes that risking that many lives will not even affect the outcome of the war, which is why he wants to pull so many out. However, many military troops would like to keep them there through 2014, so that they can get through the battle they are deeply in. Another main reason we are pulling out is that we are losing so much money, and we dont have enough to keep it going. Many believe this could have great consequences, such as killing innocent troops just because they do not have enough support.
I believe that they should keep the troops there only until the fighting is done in 2014, and then immediately pull them out. Pulling some troops out and keeping others will only cause corruption to our country and a lot of innocent deaths. If they are going to pull any, they should pull all. I somewhat think they should pull them also though, just because of how bad our economy is right now, and this is just another anchor pulling it down day by day.
Extra Credit Belcher
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/12/state-of-the-union-obama-text/1914769/
I reread over the state of the union address on this website.Obama starts off by saying how the JFK said the government is a team and needs to work as one. Then he touches on some of the major problems that we are having in the U.S. He says the troops are coming home, how we created jobs during a recession, and how our house and stock market is rebounding.Then he goes on to talk about a possible accomplishments and have we have come from. The one major thing I picked up is that he said we will be fuel independent.
Reaction: I like how he says the possible things we could do but on the other hand they are just words. I don't believe that he can get all done that he said but I believe he could some of it done. I also would like to see how he would make our fuel independent and make us non-dependent on foreign oil. I also think that with us selling our oil for cheaper than were buying it is not really smart and could be better done. I also like how he goes on to say that we are growing economicly and I hope that this is true because that would help america a lot.
EC Haley Zap
http://nation.time.com/2013/02/13/afghan-endgame/
I was not able to watch the SOTU address, but I read a few articles from Time Magazine. The first is about how Obama said he was pulling 34,000 troops out of Afghanistan within the next year, which is a little bit more than half. After announcing that, he recieved a standing applause from some, but the speaker of the house John Boehner remained seated. I thought that the article saying who remained seated or stood and what not really goes to show how much just the actions and reactions of the people in Congress actually matter. The article talks about the reasons Obama decided to pull troops out, which is simply that the people want to as well, the war is a lost cause, and it's going to have to happen sometime so it should probably be sooner rather than later. Then it discusses why we SHOULD be staying in Afghanistan (the reasons are pretty complicated though). Personally I don't yet have a strong or very educated opinion about this issue.
http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/13/marco-rubio-responds-to-obamas-state-of-the-union/
This article is all about Marco Rubio's response to Obama. I was shocked to see that the article flat-out said, first sentence even, "the response to the State of the Union is a lousy assignment," and then, "When Obama delivers his next State of the Union, most Americans won’t even remember who delivered the last response." (this article is more of an opinion obviously). From their point of view I see how it does kind of suck, all you do is go against and fight the president on issues, when a person of Congress would probably look better working with or compromising with Obama with the current low Congress ratings and gridlock. But I also think it is an important job since a lot of Americans tune in to watch it and non-party members get to hear both sides of an issue. And it is an eventful speech to watch with rumors that Rubio has a chance to be our president come 2016.
I was not able to watch the SOTU address, but I read a few articles from Time Magazine. The first is about how Obama said he was pulling 34,000 troops out of Afghanistan within the next year, which is a little bit more than half. After announcing that, he recieved a standing applause from some, but the speaker of the house John Boehner remained seated. I thought that the article saying who remained seated or stood and what not really goes to show how much just the actions and reactions of the people in Congress actually matter. The article talks about the reasons Obama decided to pull troops out, which is simply that the people want to as well, the war is a lost cause, and it's going to have to happen sometime so it should probably be sooner rather than later. Then it discusses why we SHOULD be staying in Afghanistan (the reasons are pretty complicated though). Personally I don't yet have a strong or very educated opinion about this issue.
http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/13/marco-rubio-responds-to-obamas-state-of-the-union/
This article is all about Marco Rubio's response to Obama. I was shocked to see that the article flat-out said, first sentence even, "the response to the State of the Union is a lousy assignment," and then, "When Obama delivers his next State of the Union, most Americans won’t even remember who delivered the last response." (this article is more of an opinion obviously). From their point of view I see how it does kind of suck, all you do is go against and fight the president on issues, when a person of Congress would probably look better working with or compromising with Obama with the current low Congress ratings and gridlock. But I also think it is an important job since a lot of Americans tune in to watch it and non-party members get to hear both sides of an issue. And it is an eventful speech to watch with rumors that Rubio has a chance to be our president come 2016.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Extra Credit Logan Yingling, SOTU
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/small-business-state-of-the-union-scorecard-small-business-gives-obama-proposals-mixed-review/2013/02/13/3292760e-7634-11e2-b102-948929030e64_story.html
So far I have only watched Sen. Rubio's response, on behalf of the GOP, and read an article on the SOTU concerning small business. The GOP wants to cut back on taxes, thus allowing small business to grow, while the Democratic party wants to enforce a more simplified, tax code, with raised taxes. Many small business owners find it difficult to keep up on tax administration, let alone pay the actual taxes. In addition Obama proposed raising minimum wage to $9.00. Obama also wants to reform immigration, to create a better, more skilled work force, stop illegal immigration, and bring more small business.
Reaction-
It it hard for me to decide which is better, the GOP's or the Democrat's. Just looking at it on the surface I would say the GOP's sounds like it would work better, but the Democrat's also sounds like it could work. Although my typology quiz said I was a Solid Liberal (75% of which are Democrats) I'm not sure this fits me. Perhaps I am socially a Liberal, but when it comes to economics I am basically clueless. One of Sen. Rubio's remarks was to reform immigration so new workers could assimilate to our Nation. Yes, they should partially assimilate to our Nation economically, however diversity is something which makes America great. It seems like the only reason we want immigrants is because they will take jobs and stimulate the economy, while yes, those are great things, we should also see what they will bring to our society as people, not just workers.
.
Right now my computer is being stupid, I'm worried my internet will shut down randomly( which has happened before) so I'm going to post this now even though its not done. Once my computer is no longer being stupid i will finish
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Health Care & The Enviornment - Heiderscheit
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/us/potable-water-reuse-ideas-go-forward-in-texas-despite-concerns.html?_r=0 Article Title: Water-Reuse Ideas Go Forward, Despite ‘Toilet to Tap’ Concerns
Summary: In Wichitaw Falls, Texas, something is about to occur that may gross some people out. As you probably know, that area of Texas has been experiencing a drought that's diminishing it's drinking water supply. Lakes in the area are now lower than 40% of capacity. It is because of this extreme lack of water that the city is being pushed to take drastic measures. The city is now preparing a new system to produce drinking water. This system is using water which was previously used as sewage water and transorming it into something that is suitable to drink. Many agree that this step, if it follows all necessary hygenic steps, will benefit Wichitaw Falls greatly. Those opposed have named the water produced 'Toliet to Tap' water and are convinced that it can't be sanitary to drink.
Reaction: I guess you have to do what you have to do. The idea of drinking water previously used for sewage is a little unsettling, but as long as they really are taking all necessary percautions I see nothing wrong with it. The article said that the water would be no less healthy and would taste virtually the same as regular tap water. The only thing is I think they would have to thoroughly prove that to the citizens of Whichitaw Falls before it's used, becuase many people will be skeptical. Class Connection: While this sort of state project is under the governmental jurisdiction of Texas, as opposed to the federal government, they still must be constitutional. For instance, they must provide their citizens with water that is safe to drink, as stated in the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Summary: In Wichitaw Falls, Texas, something is about to occur that may gross some people out. As you probably know, that area of Texas has been experiencing a drought that's diminishing it's drinking water supply. Lakes in the area are now lower than 40% of capacity. It is because of this extreme lack of water that the city is being pushed to take drastic measures. The city is now preparing a new system to produce drinking water. This system is using water which was previously used as sewage water and transorming it into something that is suitable to drink. Many agree that this step, if it follows all necessary hygenic steps, will benefit Wichitaw Falls greatly. Those opposed have named the water produced 'Toliet to Tap' water and are convinced that it can't be sanitary to drink.
Reaction: I guess you have to do what you have to do. The idea of drinking water previously used for sewage is a little unsettling, but as long as they really are taking all necessary percautions I see nothing wrong with it. The article said that the water would be no less healthy and would taste virtually the same as regular tap water. The only thing is I think they would have to thoroughly prove that to the citizens of Whichitaw Falls before it's used, becuase many people will be skeptical. Class Connection: While this sort of state project is under the governmental jurisdiction of Texas, as opposed to the federal government, they still must be constitutional. For instance, they must provide their citizens with water that is safe to drink, as stated in the Safe Drinking Water Act.
health care Bryce Melton
http://www.naturalnews.com/038627_Obamacare_health_insurance_rates_rising.html
Putting Obama care into affect will raise insurance costs by very large amounts for a wide group of people. Not only will this effect people, but it will also now effect smaller businesses that are not provided health care by their employer, which means they will also now have to purchase health care. Many health care agencies are raising their costs by up to 20-30%. The costs of premiums are also majorly rising, and will continue to rise in the future. Many Americans have been reported to put off some sicknesses and treatments so that they will not have to pay the large cost that it will be for them. Rates are being increased by insurance companies primarily because they are now required by law to cover more and more people. During the passing of Obamacare through Congress premiums were said to be increased by 11-13% in just that small period of time. Since the elderly require so much attention and care, the younger people are required to pay more and more just to help out the elderly.
I believe that major action needs to be taken to somehow lower the cost of healthcare. I believe that the younger should not be required to pay more just to help out the elderly. I dont think Obamacare should be in place, I feel as if it will hurt us more in the end than it will help us. Seeing the rate that insurance companies are increasing their prices just frightens me on what they will be when I am in my thirties and on up. This may sound selfish, but if I am going to be paying a ton of money for health care I would like it to be going towards helping me, not the elderly.
National Security
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-afghanistan-pullout-pentagon-favors-phased-reduction-over-3-years/2013/02/11/14a4faba-7484-11e2-95e4-6148e45d7adb_story.html
Summary: This article is mainly talking about how the pentagon wants to keep 8,000 troops in Afghanistan once the military mission ends there in 2014, but would shrink over the following two years sending these troops home. The military's commanders fear that once the military shrinks in size, it will erode the battlefield gain. Officials also worry that having those 8,000 troops there will come at a large cost in dollars and in lives. The U.S. White House and the Pentagon are working with the military's commanders and officials in reducing the troops in 2016 between 3,500 and 6,000 troops, but another option that's been discussed is further reducing troops to under 1,000 by 2017.
Reaction: I think that reducing the troops is a good idea if it's at least 3,500 to 6,000 like they were discussing. That way lots of troops could come home to their families and rest awhile and if they are absolutely needed over in Afghanistan, then they could go back. But, I also feel that if they keep lowering the numbers, something could go wrong and they wouldn't have the back-up that the troops need. 6,000 would be a good number to stay at and they could always send more over. But, if they keep lowering the number and something happens, what if they can't get help in time? But also, what if by reducing our troops is better? I think that by 2016 we could at least give some families the reassurance that their troops get to come home for a while.
Social Welfare - Taylor Amey
http://mdjonline.com/view/full_story/21669185/article-White-House--Cuts-threaten-social-welfare-programs?instance=secondary_story_left_column
People in Washington are fearing about the next looming spending cuts and the effects it can have on the people who depend on certain programs. After avoiding this same situation in January, it's back again with the cuts set to take effect on March 1st. If they were to go into effect, they would affect thousands who depend on these programs. 70,000 children would be kicked off of the Head Start program, 373,000 mentally ill adults and children would go untreated, and federal assistance programs like "Meals on Wheels" would be slashed.
I think this is extremely dangerous. Not only is the risk of people's health in the air but also the jobs of thousands of government employees, including teachers. It looks like we will have to push the fiscal cliff back a couple more months in order to ignore it for now. However, what Congress needs to do is to come up with a serious plan in which we will never see something like this ever again. This links into government because with all these programs at risk and the federal government has control over all of these, it's a very clear link.
People in Washington are fearing about the next looming spending cuts and the effects it can have on the people who depend on certain programs. After avoiding this same situation in January, it's back again with the cuts set to take effect on March 1st. If they were to go into effect, they would affect thousands who depend on these programs. 70,000 children would be kicked off of the Head Start program, 373,000 mentally ill adults and children would go untreated, and federal assistance programs like "Meals on Wheels" would be slashed.
I think this is extremely dangerous. Not only is the risk of people's health in the air but also the jobs of thousands of government employees, including teachers. It looks like we will have to push the fiscal cliff back a couple more months in order to ignore it for now. However, what Congress needs to do is to come up with a serious plan in which we will never see something like this ever again. This links into government because with all these programs at risk and the federal government has control over all of these, it's a very clear link.
Welfare Belcher
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/13/american-social-welfare-state-mitt-romney_n_1205357.html
Mitt Romney talks about how Obama's social welfare is turning into Europes social welfare. The website says the U.S is already a social welfare state that is really close to europes. Then the website goes on to talk about how there is a hole other side of social welfare the people dont know about. They say that there a lot of tax expeditures that benefit individuals and companies.The 2 biggest tax breaks are exemtions from employer-health benefits and retirement plans and pensions.Then they go on to say that these current social welfare ideas are making the rich and the poor get more money. they say that out of this whole thing the worst recieving group is the middle class.
Response:I believe that the us making our system like Europes would be a bad idea, because they constanly have money problems and I dont believe its fair that the rich could get more benefits easier. I believe that it is not fair with this system for the top 20% to get 80% of the benefits, as said by this article.How this connects is that social welfare is always on the policy agenda on how a candidate can make it better.
Mitt Romney talks about how Obama's social welfare is turning into Europes social welfare. The website says the U.S is already a social welfare state that is really close to europes. Then the website goes on to talk about how there is a hole other side of social welfare the people dont know about. They say that there a lot of tax expeditures that benefit individuals and companies.The 2 biggest tax breaks are exemtions from employer-health benefits and retirement plans and pensions.Then they go on to say that these current social welfare ideas are making the rich and the poor get more money. they say that out of this whole thing the worst recieving group is the middle class.
Response:I believe that the us making our system like Europes would be a bad idea, because they constanly have money problems and I dont believe its fair that the rich could get more benefits easier. I believe that it is not fair with this system for the top 20% to get 80% of the benefits, as said by this article.How this connects is that social welfare is always on the policy agenda on how a candidate can make it better.
Social Welfare- Seaba
http://www.chron.com/sponsored/makrislawfirm/article/The-Roots-of-Social-Welfare-Programs-4213711.php
Summary: Social scurity was signed into aw by President Framklin D. Roosevelt in 1935, But the idea of a socioeconomic safty net for the elderly, ill, or disabled dates back the the ancient greeks. It could also be seen in the western European medieval feudal system.The first offical state-sanctioned social welfare were the English Poor Laws of 1601. The English had created a distincted line between deserving and undeserving, and in modern times that line has become increaseingly blurred. Shown by those who want to work but can't, and those who don't want to work and just live off the system. The poor lived in shelters called almshouses. As early America grew and population increased localized control over these houses became more difficult and so the colonists moved towards more centralized control, as in the Federal Government. Much like today, the centralized government proved to be proved to inefficient , wasteful, and more expensive.
Reflection: I agree with all pionts of this article. The social welfare of this country in inefficeint, wasteful, and highly expensive. Connection: the centalized federal government system was talked about in class.
Summary: Social scurity was signed into aw by President Framklin D. Roosevelt in 1935, But the idea of a socioeconomic safty net for the elderly, ill, or disabled dates back the the ancient greeks. It could also be seen in the western European medieval feudal system.The first offical state-sanctioned social welfare were the English Poor Laws of 1601. The English had created a distincted line between deserving and undeserving, and in modern times that line has become increaseingly blurred. Shown by those who want to work but can't, and those who don't want to work and just live off the system. The poor lived in shelters called almshouses. As early America grew and population increased localized control over these houses became more difficult and so the colonists moved towards more centralized control, as in the Federal Government. Much like today, the centralized government proved to be proved to inefficient , wasteful, and more expensive.
Reflection: I agree with all pionts of this article. The social welfare of this country in inefficeint, wasteful, and highly expensive. Connection: the centalized federal government system was talked about in class.
Midey
http://bits.blogs.nytimees.com/2013/01/13/u-s-agency-warns-of-java-software-problem/?ref=homelandsecuritydepartment
Summary: this article was about how Oracle fixed a security flaw in the Java software on computers. The flaw allowed hackers to take control of the computer. Department of homeland security had warned users to disable the software. A European security researcher discovered this and posted about it in his blog. Java is used in 850 million computers and this isn't the first time it has been a security problem. Las April, attackers infected more than half a million computers with a virus that took users to foreign policy web sites. The program downloaded by itself onto computers without any prompt.
Connection: This could be a major problem for us if they hadn't fixed it. Hackers could attack a computer and find out info about our country and use it against us. If it's been a problem in the past they should get rid of the sofware or figure out a way to protect it better before releasing it on computers. This connects to the class because if the hackers re terrorists, they could use the information they find and use it to help themselves. The flaw in the system is a big threat to our national security. It affects a lot of people in our country with all of the computers that have Java installed on it. Many programs run with Java and anyone trained can hack into any computer and control it. Luckily, they fixed and it can't be hacked anymore. For now at least.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Health Care and Environment -- Hale
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/a-cruel-blow-to-american-families.html?ref=healthcare&_r=0
This article, appropriately titled "A Cruel Blow to American Families", describes the newest development in the costs of health care. The IRS has released a new, incredibly strict policy on how to determine the cost of employer provided health care. The group has found a way to make the cost of health care for those with modest incomes too high to purchase from the employer, but the income does not qualify for additional subsidies. This leaves a huge population in a very sticky situation, where the health care is either too expensive, or not expensive enough.
Issues like these are unfortunate. It seems like those who are truly trying to make an honest living are having so many obstacles put in their way. It destroys any sort of incentive to get off of the couch and stop collecting unemployment and free health care because these citizens are watching and realizing that even if they do work, the government will still find a way to make it hard on them. This is the wrong message that the government needs to be giving out, it will simply lead to more laziness and a lowered ambitions.
When issues like these arise, the middle class needs to raise awareness. They can utilize various linkage institutions, such as staging media events to let the IRS and the rest of the government know that they are trying to make a difference for themselves, though it seems like they are being fought back against. Additionally, this article hints to the fact that this is the opposite of the purpose of health care reform. This means that the bill may be amended in order to reorient the goals in the right direction.
This article, appropriately titled "A Cruel Blow to American Families", describes the newest development in the costs of health care. The IRS has released a new, incredibly strict policy on how to determine the cost of employer provided health care. The group has found a way to make the cost of health care for those with modest incomes too high to purchase from the employer, but the income does not qualify for additional subsidies. This leaves a huge population in a very sticky situation, where the health care is either too expensive, or not expensive enough.
Issues like these are unfortunate. It seems like those who are truly trying to make an honest living are having so many obstacles put in their way. It destroys any sort of incentive to get off of the couch and stop collecting unemployment and free health care because these citizens are watching and realizing that even if they do work, the government will still find a way to make it hard on them. This is the wrong message that the government needs to be giving out, it will simply lead to more laziness and a lowered ambitions.
When issues like these arise, the middle class needs to raise awareness. They can utilize various linkage institutions, such as staging media events to let the IRS and the rest of the government know that they are trying to make a difference for themselves, though it seems like they are being fought back against. Additionally, this article hints to the fact that this is the opposite of the purpose of health care reform. This means that the bill may be amended in order to reorient the goals in the right direction.
economics-James Robinson
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/23/immigration-spouse-waivers/1858209/
In this article it talks Obama passing the new immigration law. This law lets illegal immigrants try to get wavers to become a American without having to leave the United States and have to wait 10 years to come back and try to become American citizen if they lived there for over a year. to enable them to get a waver okayed is they have to prove that them leaving the U.S. would provide extreme hardship for a U.S. citizen family member. some people are thinking that, this 10 year outcast to get less illegal immiagrants from coming in and this will take that away. Obama feels though is a good for America and that it probably will boose his populatrity rating in asians and hispanics.
how i feel about this is that it is a good thing that this law was passed. most people coming over to the U.S are just seeking a better life. Also economicly they would help the U.S out because most of them coming over are looking for more jobs and are more willing to move to get the jobs so they will make out jobless ratings go down. plus if they do have to pay social seacurity most of them are young and won't need it for a long time so that is just more money in America's pocket. If anything it will make our great nation look even better with more of them becoming americans. The connection to our class is campaining. because of this law more minoraties are going to like obama and because he is a democrate this is also going to make their party look better. so all thos immigrants becoming u.s citizen will most likely now become democrates because of Obama and thus the D becoming a more powerful party with more of them on their side.
In this article it talks Obama passing the new immigration law. This law lets illegal immigrants try to get wavers to become a American without having to leave the United States and have to wait 10 years to come back and try to become American citizen if they lived there for over a year. to enable them to get a waver okayed is they have to prove that them leaving the U.S. would provide extreme hardship for a U.S. citizen family member. some people are thinking that, this 10 year outcast to get less illegal immiagrants from coming in and this will take that away. Obama feels though is a good for America and that it probably will boose his populatrity rating in asians and hispanics.
how i feel about this is that it is a good thing that this law was passed. most people coming over to the U.S are just seeking a better life. Also economicly they would help the U.S out because most of them coming over are looking for more jobs and are more willing to move to get the jobs so they will make out jobless ratings go down. plus if they do have to pay social seacurity most of them are young and won't need it for a long time so that is just more money in America's pocket. If anything it will make our great nation look even better with more of them becoming americans. The connection to our class is campaining. because of this law more minoraties are going to like obama and because he is a democrate this is also going to make their party look better. so all thos immigrants becoming u.s citizen will most likely now become democrates because of Obama and thus the D becoming a more powerful party with more of them on their side.
National Security- Kranovich
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/07/news/la-pn-jewish-coalition-forum-20111207
This article talks about how Rick Santorum is focusing his attention less on the problem with the economy and more on foriegn policy and National security. He felt that in the election that national security would be a huge deal that would need to be addressed. He also talked about how Obamas indifference has made Iran a much stronger power than they should be. Santorum feels the United States needs to take a much stronger approach to national security, especially toward Iran.
I feel that Santorum is right and that we do need to beef up our national security and try to suppress threats like Iran. If we want to show our power and keep countries from trying to hurt us we have to take our national security very seriously. This relates to our class because when candidates are running for office they will try to push ideas that will get them the most votes. Also Santorum is not necesarilly attacking Obama, but he is trying to get people to think that he isn't doing a good job in regards to national security.
This article talks about how Rick Santorum is focusing his attention less on the problem with the economy and more on foriegn policy and National security. He felt that in the election that national security would be a huge deal that would need to be addressed. He also talked about how Obamas indifference has made Iran a much stronger power than they should be. Santorum feels the United States needs to take a much stronger approach to national security, especially toward Iran.
I feel that Santorum is right and that we do need to beef up our national security and try to suppress threats like Iran. If we want to show our power and keep countries from trying to hurt us we have to take our national security very seriously. This relates to our class because when candidates are running for office they will try to push ideas that will get them the most votes. Also Santorum is not necesarilly attacking Obama, but he is trying to get people to think that he isn't doing a good job in regards to national security.
National Security Isaac Frantz
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-unlikely-to-reconsider-arming-syrian-rebels-despite-views-of-security-staff/2013/02/08/e05a337e-7208-11e2-8b8d-e0b59a1b8e2a_story_1.html
In this article it talks about the discussion in our government about whether or not to provide weapons to Syria. On one hand, the article discusses, providing weapons may result in the wrong people getting them and creating another situation like Afganistan. On the other hand, providing weapons may shorten the civil war in Syria and preserve human lives. So far, Obama has been against providing weapons although he has not brought it to public discussion for some time.
I can see both sides in this debate. I can understand wanting to provide weapons to shorten the war, but I also don't want the weapons to fall into the wrong hands. I will have to do more research before I can make up my mind on this topic. This relates to our class because national security has been, and always will be, a major concern of yhe American people. It also relates to the economy because Syria is in the middle east and any disputes that go on in that area almost always cause gas prices to climb
In this article it talks about the discussion in our government about whether or not to provide weapons to Syria. On one hand, the article discusses, providing weapons may result in the wrong people getting them and creating another situation like Afganistan. On the other hand, providing weapons may shorten the civil war in Syria and preserve human lives. So far, Obama has been against providing weapons although he has not brought it to public discussion for some time.
I can see both sides in this debate. I can understand wanting to provide weapons to shorten the war, but I also don't want the weapons to fall into the wrong hands. I will have to do more research before I can make up my mind on this topic. This relates to our class because national security has been, and always will be, a major concern of yhe American people. It also relates to the economy because Syria is in the middle east and any disputes that go on in that area almost always cause gas prices to climb
Enviroment - Haley Zap
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57568721/report-obama-to-bypass-congress-on-gay-rights-environment/
This article is about how Obama is planning on bypassing Congress on some issues with executive orders. The news is actually from today, so we will most likely hear how it ends up pretty soon. Obama feels the need to bypass Congress because they are just taking too long on issues and are in a state of gridlock. He plans on banning workplace discrimination towards LGBTs and issue rules on the regulation of carbon emissions from power plants.
I'm all for Obama instituting these new policies, but I think it might be a bad choice to try to bypass Congress. His actions will probably end up biting him in the butt later.
We are learning about Congress right now, but I am a little confused on HOW exactly the president is able to enact policies without them. Hopefully this will be cleared up soon once I fully understand the powers Congress has over the president. Also, this talks about gridlock, which is a big issue in our nation's bicameral legislature.
This article is about how Obama is planning on bypassing Congress on some issues with executive orders. The news is actually from today, so we will most likely hear how it ends up pretty soon. Obama feels the need to bypass Congress because they are just taking too long on issues and are in a state of gridlock. He plans on banning workplace discrimination towards LGBTs and issue rules on the regulation of carbon emissions from power plants.
I'm all for Obama instituting these new policies, but I think it might be a bad choice to try to bypass Congress. His actions will probably end up biting him in the butt later.
We are learning about Congress right now, but I am a little confused on HOW exactly the president is able to enact policies without them. Hopefully this will be cleared up soon once I fully understand the powers Congress has over the president. Also, this talks about gridlock, which is a big issue in our nation's bicameral legislature.
Economy-Stephanie Moore
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/02/10/usa-today-first-quarer-economic-survey/1902217/
Summary: This article is mainly about forecasting the economic state of our country and how it will evolve in 2013. The first half is expected to start sluggish but then by mid-year the economy will "kick in to high gear and business activity will kick up". Economists suspect we will be on the verge of a self-sustaining recovery. Our economy looks bad at the moment but hopefully it will all turn around.
Connection and Reaction: This can connect to our course by our brief discussion on the fiscal cliff. We saw the cartoon and as it appears we hopefully will be off of that cliff relatively soon. My reaction to this article is excited. Although a bad economy does not affect me directly, a good economy can always help people. If our economy is improving that means we can only go up from here.
Summary: This article is mainly about forecasting the economic state of our country and how it will evolve in 2013. The first half is expected to start sluggish but then by mid-year the economy will "kick in to high gear and business activity will kick up". Economists suspect we will be on the verge of a self-sustaining recovery. Our economy looks bad at the moment but hopefully it will all turn around.
Connection and Reaction: This can connect to our course by our brief discussion on the fiscal cliff. We saw the cartoon and as it appears we hopefully will be off of that cliff relatively soon. My reaction to this article is excited. Although a bad economy does not affect me directly, a good economy can always help people. If our economy is improving that means we can only go up from here.
eco burroughs
http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/11/news/economy/federal-reserve-jobs/index.html?iid=HP_LN
This article is about the concern for the job market getting fixed. The vice chairwoman of the Federal Reserve Board believes that the central bank needs to focus on boosting the job market specifically. She thinks its going to take a long long time to get back to where the job market was in 2007. Janet Yellen is known as an inflation dove which is one who is concerned more about the weak job market rather than inflation. The opposite of an inflation dove is an inflation hawk who criticize the feds policies for weakening the dollar and potentially fueling asset bubbles. She cited the unemployment rate which is 7.9% and the poverty rate at 15% showing that congress and the fed need to do more to boost the economy.
I agree with Janet Yellen's theory about focusing on just the job market and not on inflation. I believe that getting the job market back up is doable but is going to take a lot longer than 2-4 years. I think that congress needs to put more effort into fixing the job market and i do not think that there recent raising of taxes is not going to help at all. this connects to the class by when we talked about the congress' ability to fix the economy and the fiscal cliff deal.
This article is about the concern for the job market getting fixed. The vice chairwoman of the Federal Reserve Board believes that the central bank needs to focus on boosting the job market specifically. She thinks its going to take a long long time to get back to where the job market was in 2007. Janet Yellen is known as an inflation dove which is one who is concerned more about the weak job market rather than inflation. The opposite of an inflation dove is an inflation hawk who criticize the feds policies for weakening the dollar and potentially fueling asset bubbles. She cited the unemployment rate which is 7.9% and the poverty rate at 15% showing that congress and the fed need to do more to boost the economy.
I agree with Janet Yellen's theory about focusing on just the job market and not on inflation. I believe that getting the job market back up is doable but is going to take a lot longer than 2-4 years. I think that congress needs to put more effort into fixing the job market and i do not think that there recent raising of taxes is not going to help at all. this connects to the class by when we talked about the congress' ability to fix the economy and the fiscal cliff deal.
Economics- Kaylie Barnett
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/obama-to-refocus-on-jobs-economic-growth-in-state-of-the-union-address-to-the-nation/2013/02/09/dea01e40-72c1-11e2-b3f3-b263d708ca37_story.html
Summary- This article is about how President Obama is going to address economic growth in his State of the Union address to the country. He wants to focus more on job creation in this time of unemployment. He feels that without focusing on the economy, it could threaten his ability to handle issues like gun control, immigration, and climate change. According to the article, the economic issue has taken a backseat since other events, such as the Newtown shooting, but unemployment is at a constant high and the economic growth has slowed. The consumer confidence is falling and Obama believes nothing will get done without addressing the economy first. However, he is expected to use the speech to persuade lawmakers to his other policy goals, as well.
Connection- I think he's right that he needs to address the economy first. We have been living with high unemployment for years and it needs to change. The gun control and immigration can wait, but the slowing economic growth cannot. One way he plans to change that is with improving education. This is definately going to affect us. Also, I feel like Congress will not be able to come up with solutions to this either and will just end up in a deadlock. This connects to what we've learned because our government is divided. The Republicans in Congress are all for spending cuts but Obama thinks that won't get anything done. I agree with the executive branch because they need to just take the pain of the increased spending in hopes of bettering our economy; then they can cut spending when we are stabilized. Because they are divided on their ideas on how initiate policy, I believe they will end up not getting anything done.
Summary- This article is about how President Obama is going to address economic growth in his State of the Union address to the country. He wants to focus more on job creation in this time of unemployment. He feels that without focusing on the economy, it could threaten his ability to handle issues like gun control, immigration, and climate change. According to the article, the economic issue has taken a backseat since other events, such as the Newtown shooting, but unemployment is at a constant high and the economic growth has slowed. The consumer confidence is falling and Obama believes nothing will get done without addressing the economy first. However, he is expected to use the speech to persuade lawmakers to his other policy goals, as well.
Connection- I think he's right that he needs to address the economy first. We have been living with high unemployment for years and it needs to change. The gun control and immigration can wait, but the slowing economic growth cannot. One way he plans to change that is with improving education. This is definately going to affect us. Also, I feel like Congress will not be able to come up with solutions to this either and will just end up in a deadlock. This connects to what we've learned because our government is divided. The Republicans in Congress are all for spending cuts but Obama thinks that won't get anything done. I agree with the executive branch because they need to just take the pain of the increased spending in hopes of bettering our economy; then they can cut spending when we are stabilized. Because they are divided on their ideas on how initiate policy, I believe they will end up not getting anything done.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Economy Bryce Melton
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/business/economy/us-economy-unexpectedly-contracted-in-fourth-quarter.html?ref=unitedstateseconomy&_r=0
The federal government has done some things over the last year that have helped out our economy such as spending cuts on the military. However, they will have to make much tighter cuts on things soon before it gets even more hectic. Spending cuts are set to take place on March 1 this year, and most americans are having to pay higher payroll taxes also. The economy's last quarter was the worst quarter since the economy came out of the last recession. They believe that it will jump from .1 of last quarter to 1.5% now. Many are saying that the Republicans are the ones to blame for this not happening because they are not willing to pass anything. However the unemployment rate has dropped down to 7.8%, which is a good thing to see. Military spending was cut 22.2% and inventories and exports were dropped. Also, the economy did grow by 2.2%, which is slightly better than the 1.8% of 2011. President Obama and Congress also allowed a temporary cut in Social Security, which will cost a worker even more money to pay to the government.
I believe that our economy is in a crisis, and somethings need to be changed immediately so that we dont go into another recession. I believe the cut in military spending was a great idea, also the cut on imports and exports, which can cost a lot of money for us. Being a worker myself, the higher payroll taxes are a little irritating, and it makes my check even smaller, but I believe if it works, then it should be kept in place. Our economy is in need of a big boost out of this time of hardships. I believe that the democrats and republicans need to work out things faster and more effective, or we may be in even more trouble. It is good to see that unemployment is dropping, which means even more people are paying taxes.
National security-James Robinson
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/us/26wiretap.html?ref=nationalsecurityagency&_r=1&
In this article after a raid in 2003, in Rawah, Iraq they found a note book of names and phone numbers listed of people who lived here, in the United States. The notebook named two people, Yassin M. Aref, and a Damascus. The F.B.I quickly started a sting operation on Mr.Aref to try to capture him. They used fake information about launching a missile and to try to do assassination in New York. They convinced Mr.Aref of the fake plans and he agreed to help terrorism by laundering money to the fake operation. Mr.Aref was capture and was sentence 15 years in federal prison. But the case, how every, mite not be over. Mr.Aref lawyer said that he mite have found proof of illegal surveillance by the National Security Agency. The question here is, do you think it is alright for the National Security Agency to use illegal surveillance if it in means of keeping America safe by capturing a person who will have terrorist.
I think what should come into play here that though they mite have use some illegal surveillance, it was in the mean of keeping America safe. I think it was for the greater good because they were in fact terrorist so they did what they had to do. I'm glad to know that i am safe here because the government will try to do what they can to stop terrorism. I mean if you wanted to talk about illegal then i guess he should look at the money he try to give them for a fake missile launch. The connection to our class is i think it should be kinda of like that court case where, the guy was running tying to get people to not sign up for the draft during the Vietnam war so the government came and stopped him and had taken why the freedom of speech he had. The supreme court said though during time of war it is a threat to america so they had that right to restrict his freedom. I think here is the same case. He was suspected of terrorism because of the notebook they found so they had to make sure and they were right.
In this article after a raid in 2003, in Rawah, Iraq they found a note book of names and phone numbers listed of people who lived here, in the United States. The notebook named two people, Yassin M. Aref, and a Damascus. The F.B.I quickly started a sting operation on Mr.Aref to try to capture him. They used fake information about launching a missile and to try to do assassination in New York. They convinced Mr.Aref of the fake plans and he agreed to help terrorism by laundering money to the fake operation. Mr.Aref was capture and was sentence 15 years in federal prison. But the case, how every, mite not be over. Mr.Aref lawyer said that he mite have found proof of illegal surveillance by the National Security Agency. The question here is, do you think it is alright for the National Security Agency to use illegal surveillance if it in means of keeping America safe by capturing a person who will have terrorist.
I think what should come into play here that though they mite have use some illegal surveillance, it was in the mean of keeping America safe. I think it was for the greater good because they were in fact terrorist so they did what they had to do. I'm glad to know that i am safe here because the government will try to do what they can to stop terrorism. I mean if you wanted to talk about illegal then i guess he should look at the money he try to give them for a fake missile launch. The connection to our class is i think it should be kinda of like that court case where, the guy was running tying to get people to not sign up for the draft during the Vietnam war so the government came and stopped him and had taken why the freedom of speech he had. The supreme court said though during time of war it is a threat to america so they had that right to restrict his freedom. I think here is the same case. He was suspected of terrorism because of the notebook they found so they had to make sure and they were right.
enviroment Isaac Frantz
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/sharks-reputation-as-man-eaters-is-unfair-and-threatens-the-species-authors-say/2013/02/04/5b7b6542-6bd7-11e2-bd36-c0fe61a205f6_story.html?hpid=z4
This article is about sharks and how people are misled into believing that sharks are all ruthless murderers of man. This article says that shark attacs are extremely rare and that most of the reported shark attacks are often only sightings or close encounters. The article goes on to say that before the movie "Jaws" sharks were considered "trash fish" and were hardly noticed, but after the movie sharks became "murderous, evil creatures" that were bent on killing every human they came into contact with. The article goes on to say that Florida, known to some as the shark attack capiyal of the world, has less than 700 reported attacks in the last 150 years, with only eleven reported deaths.
I think that this article does a good job in telling facts about sharks and shark attacks. I did not know that there were so few shark attacks in the world, something that I find comforting since I am going to a beach for spring break. This relates to our class because if people see that sharks very rarely attack humans then they might consider goibg to a beach for vacation, which would help that tiwns local economy which would, in turn, help our countries economy.
This article is about sharks and how people are misled into believing that sharks are all ruthless murderers of man. This article says that shark attacs are extremely rare and that most of the reported shark attacks are often only sightings or close encounters. The article goes on to say that before the movie "Jaws" sharks were considered "trash fish" and were hardly noticed, but after the movie sharks became "murderous, evil creatures" that were bent on killing every human they came into contact with. The article goes on to say that Florida, known to some as the shark attack capiyal of the world, has less than 700 reported attacks in the last 150 years, with only eleven reported deaths.
I think that this article does a good job in telling facts about sharks and shark attacks. I did not know that there were so few shark attacks in the world, something that I find comforting since I am going to a beach for spring break. This relates to our class because if people see that sharks very rarely attack humans then they might consider goibg to a beach for vacation, which would help that tiwns local economy which would, in turn, help our countries economy.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Economics - Taylor Amey
http://www.freep.com/article/20130130/BUSINESS07/130130021/U-S-economy-shrinks-1st-time-in-more-than-3-years
Between the months of October and December 2012, the US economy shrank for the first time in three years. During the fourth quarter of the 2012 fiscal year, the economy grew at a rate of 0.1%, a 3% decrease from the July through September 2012 quarter that generated a 3.1% growth. This is the result of the largest defense budget cut in 40 years, less exports, and bad growth in company stockpiles. The recent results have raised concern about what effect the tax increases and looming spending cuts will have later this year and further beyond. However, on a positive note, the economy overall grew 2.2% in 2012, an increase from 1.8% in 2011.
This is probably not a good sign. I realize that the economy is slowly growing and that is a good thing but recent events have triggered a sharp decline in growth for the 2012 fiscal year. This year doesn't look too good as the tax hikes and spending cuts are about to take effect. I believe the President is moving the economy in the right direction (kind of, and very slowly). It is better than the economy declining. This links into government because what the government does can have a cause and effect on the economy, and our government has a role in regulations with businesses and international trade, which takes a toll on the economy if not handled well.
Between the months of October and December 2012, the US economy shrank for the first time in three years. During the fourth quarter of the 2012 fiscal year, the economy grew at a rate of 0.1%, a 3% decrease from the July through September 2012 quarter that generated a 3.1% growth. This is the result of the largest defense budget cut in 40 years, less exports, and bad growth in company stockpiles. The recent results have raised concern about what effect the tax increases and looming spending cuts will have later this year and further beyond. However, on a positive note, the economy overall grew 2.2% in 2012, an increase from 1.8% in 2011.
This is probably not a good sign. I realize that the economy is slowly growing and that is a good thing but recent events have triggered a sharp decline in growth for the 2012 fiscal year. This year doesn't look too good as the tax hikes and spending cuts are about to take effect. I believe the President is moving the economy in the right direction (kind of, and very slowly). It is better than the economy declining. This links into government because what the government does can have a cause and effect on the economy, and our government has a role in regulations with businesses and international trade, which takes a toll on the economy if not handled well.
Economics
http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0113/are-labor-unions-effective.aspx#axzz2JzwkBlzA
Summary: At the dawn of the 20th century, heavy industry and big business were in their infancy and a great deal of human labor was needed in order to facilitate the mushrooming Industrial Revolution. This quickly led to widespread abuse of workers, including children, who were often consigned to sweatshops where they were forced to toil for several hours a day. However, workers eventually united to form labor unions that stood up to the big corporations and negotiated better pay and working conditions for millions of employees and also demanded the passing of child labor laws.The effectiveness of labor unions, however has always been a source of controversy.
Reaction: Of course, labor unions were created for the benefit of their members.The union represents the workers to the employers and negotiates on their behalf to secure better wages and working conditions. Research that tracks the wages of unionized versus non-unionized employees indicates that the wages of union workers exceed that of non-union employees by about 8 to 12%. Modern union contracts make it more difficult for a company to fire an unproductive employee, so basically employers are now being much more selective in who they hire, which has results in an increase in the quality of the union workforce as a whole. Regardless of their effectiveness, labor unions have played a major role in worker's rights and the economies of America and other capitalist countries.
Summary: At the dawn of the 20th century, heavy industry and big business were in their infancy and a great deal of human labor was needed in order to facilitate the mushrooming Industrial Revolution. This quickly led to widespread abuse of workers, including children, who were often consigned to sweatshops where they were forced to toil for several hours a day. However, workers eventually united to form labor unions that stood up to the big corporations and negotiated better pay and working conditions for millions of employees and also demanded the passing of child labor laws.The effectiveness of labor unions, however has always been a source of controversy.
Reaction: Of course, labor unions were created for the benefit of their members.The union represents the workers to the employers and negotiates on their behalf to secure better wages and working conditions. Research that tracks the wages of unionized versus non-unionized employees indicates that the wages of union workers exceed that of non-union employees by about 8 to 12%. Modern union contracts make it more difficult for a company to fire an unproductive employee, so basically employers are now being much more selective in who they hire, which has results in an increase in the quality of the union workforce as a whole. Regardless of their effectiveness, labor unions have played a major role in worker's rights and the economies of America and other capitalist countries.
Health Care and Environment -- Hale
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/09/opinion/morgan-climate-change-talks/index.html
Over the past months, there have been many conferences regarding climate change. Most notably, a conference of international diplomats at Doha, Qatari in December. This two week discussion raised many issues and potential solutions, but also had many short comings. A group consensus reached that the pace at which government is attacking climate change is entirely ineffective. The political "will" is much too low, potentially due to the Kyoto Protocol, which allows until 2015 to reach a decision on climate change. The conference also revealed two interesting trends in climate. The first is that the effects are real and can be seen today. Though there are some who firmly believe that humans have done nothing wrong to the environment, data show that polar ice caps are melting faster than ever, that typhoons are increasing in intensity and frequency, and the smog levels are undeniable. The second trend is our consumption of fossil fuels. The United States as a whole consumes an innumerable amount of unrenewable resources each day, and there is no signs pointing towards this being curbed. The Doha conference demands that something be done to the second trend, to help fix the first. The big question raised was whether these conferences are actually making a difference.
I think that it is necessary to have these productive discussions on key issues such as climate change. Though we would like to think that we are perfect, almost everything we do has an impact on our "carbon footprint." I think that even if you do not want to adopt the "tree hugger" persona, one can still be conscious of the effects of their actions. These conferences are doing their best to make it public knowledge that we are in trouble, and make it common practice to recycle and be environmentally friendly. Even if your actions cannot be directly observed in our lifetime, future generations will indubitably have to endure the mess we created.
The main issue that these environmental ambassadors are running into at these conference is the reluctance of the government to move the Environment up on the policy agenda. This article truly outlines the fact that if the issue is not on the policy agenda, the issue will get bumped to the back burner until it is much too late. The media, or special interest groups need to get people involved to raise awareness so that political discourse and change can occur. Additionally, another issue these conferences and activists are running into is potentially a lack of money. If a PAC or specific interest group related to the environment would more heavily endorse the issue or opinions or conferences, the awareness would go up and climate change would finally get some recognition on the political agenda.
Over the past months, there have been many conferences regarding climate change. Most notably, a conference of international diplomats at Doha, Qatari in December. This two week discussion raised many issues and potential solutions, but also had many short comings. A group consensus reached that the pace at which government is attacking climate change is entirely ineffective. The political "will" is much too low, potentially due to the Kyoto Protocol, which allows until 2015 to reach a decision on climate change. The conference also revealed two interesting trends in climate. The first is that the effects are real and can be seen today. Though there are some who firmly believe that humans have done nothing wrong to the environment, data show that polar ice caps are melting faster than ever, that typhoons are increasing in intensity and frequency, and the smog levels are undeniable. The second trend is our consumption of fossil fuels. The United States as a whole consumes an innumerable amount of unrenewable resources each day, and there is no signs pointing towards this being curbed. The Doha conference demands that something be done to the second trend, to help fix the first. The big question raised was whether these conferences are actually making a difference.
I think that it is necessary to have these productive discussions on key issues such as climate change. Though we would like to think that we are perfect, almost everything we do has an impact on our "carbon footprint." I think that even if you do not want to adopt the "tree hugger" persona, one can still be conscious of the effects of their actions. These conferences are doing their best to make it public knowledge that we are in trouble, and make it common practice to recycle and be environmentally friendly. Even if your actions cannot be directly observed in our lifetime, future generations will indubitably have to endure the mess we created.
The main issue that these environmental ambassadors are running into at these conference is the reluctance of the government to move the Environment up on the policy agenda. This article truly outlines the fact that if the issue is not on the policy agenda, the issue will get bumped to the back burner until it is much too late. The media, or special interest groups need to get people involved to raise awareness so that political discourse and change can occur. Additionally, another issue these conferences and activists are running into is potentially a lack of money. If a PAC or specific interest group related to the environment would more heavily endorse the issue or opinions or conferences, the awareness would go up and climate change would finally get some recognition on the political agenda.
National security Midey
Ariticles.latimes.Com/2012/dec/05/news/la-pn-house-secret-service-former-president-20121205
Summary: This article is about how president Clinton was the last president to receive secret service for life. After him, all of the next presidents would get only 10 years of protection. The house has voted for a law that allows all presidents to have a life of protection. Their children would also get secret service protection until they are 16 years old. Congress believes our national security has gone down too much since 911 and they think it's unsafe. Some people have questioned whether our national security is bad enough that they should take on huge costs to protect former presidents. This law would go against the 1994 law that limited presidents to 10 years of protection.
Reaction: I could see either side of this. Both have good concerns. If they give the president a lifetime of protection, they are adding a lot of money to their budget. This would not be a good thing. Bust, if they don't give the former presidents protection, they are risking that our security is strong enough and a major event wouldn't happen because they are unprotected. This connects because if they pass the law, the money used for secret service will go up majorly. This could affect the people if they raise taxes to help pay for it. Also policy makers are changing a law from 1994 to fit our national security situation.
Social Welfare- Seaba
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/09/16/rising-poverty-and-the-social-safety-net/the-difficulty-in-expanding-social-welfare-is-one-of-political-will
Summary: Long-term unemployment and rising poverty are straining our nation's social safety net, but this can not be blamed on the Great Recession. The reckless spending by our elected officials is the main reason that our entire system in jeopardy. Surpluses were squandered instead of saved and programs were expanded instead of scaled back, during the last 6 years. In june of this last year food stamps hit 41 million. That is a 50% increase since the economy went into recession. "Given this, can we expect the safety net to keep up withthe demand brought on by real and serious need?" A worthy cause like fighting poverty shouldn't be expected to be preserved intact. We should also increase the Earned Income Tax Credit, because it is the only efficient and effective government program we have for reduceing poverty.
Reaction: I agree that the main reason for the problom in social welfare is the governments reckless spending. I also think they should do something to lessen the amount of people on welfare before our "safety net" breaks.
Connection: This connects to class, because we have been talking about platform and planks. This issue is very important and could be used as a plank in the Social Welfare platform.
Summary: Long-term unemployment and rising poverty are straining our nation's social safety net, but this can not be blamed on the Great Recession. The reckless spending by our elected officials is the main reason that our entire system in jeopardy. Surpluses were squandered instead of saved and programs were expanded instead of scaled back, during the last 6 years. In june of this last year food stamps hit 41 million. That is a 50% increase since the economy went into recession. "Given this, can we expect the safety net to keep up withthe demand brought on by real and serious need?" A worthy cause like fighting poverty shouldn't be expected to be preserved intact. We should also increase the Earned Income Tax Credit, because it is the only efficient and effective government program we have for reduceing poverty.
Reaction: I agree that the main reason for the problom in social welfare is the governments reckless spending. I also think they should do something to lessen the amount of people on welfare before our "safety net" breaks.
Connection: This connects to class, because we have been talking about platform and planks. This issue is very important and could be used as a plank in the Social Welfare platform.
Kranovich- National Security
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/sunday-review/a-high-tech-war-on-leaks.html?ref=nationalsecurityagency&_r=0
This article talks about how the government is trying to find ways to reduce the amount of leaks of government secrets to the public so that national security is not breached. Journalists used to be able to keep their sources secret, but now with the help of surveillance it is much easier to track these sources down and stop the leaks from happening. In the Obama administration they have prosecuted more government officials who have leaked classified information than all other administrations combined. This causes government officials to be much more careful about what the say to the press which can help protect the U.S.A.
In my opinion this is a very good thing that Obama is doing because it is helping protect America's secrets. In my mind we should maybe even be a little more strict about the information that is printed so the government can function properly without people trying to start rumors and other things that could hurt the country. This connects to the class because of the time we talked about wiki leaks and how that let out government secrets to the public that shouldn't have been released. If the U.S. can contain these leaks then it will strengthen the country as a whole.
This article talks about how the government is trying to find ways to reduce the amount of leaks of government secrets to the public so that national security is not breached. Journalists used to be able to keep their sources secret, but now with the help of surveillance it is much easier to track these sources down and stop the leaks from happening. In the Obama administration they have prosecuted more government officials who have leaked classified information than all other administrations combined. This causes government officials to be much more careful about what the say to the press which can help protect the U.S.A.
In my opinion this is a very good thing that Obama is doing because it is helping protect America's secrets. In my mind we should maybe even be a little more strict about the information that is printed so the government can function properly without people trying to start rumors and other things that could hurt the country. This connects to the class because of the time we talked about wiki leaks and how that let out government secrets to the public that shouldn't have been released. If the U.S. can contain these leaks then it will strengthen the country as a whole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)