http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-us-spent-37-trillion-welfare-over-last-5-years_764582.html
Summary- Over the past five years, ever since president Obama has entered office, the United States has spent a combined 797.4 Billion dollars on transportation, education, and the NASA program. While on the other hand, they have spent an accumulated 3.7 trillion dollars on welfare alone. This is nearly five times as much as the spending on things that a hard working everyday American could benefit from such as transportation or education. The converted cash value that a single family living in Hawaii receives is nearly 49,000 dollars a year. This is one of the highest rates of any country found all over the world. Assistance such as food stamps is not the only form of financial welfare that Americans at the poverty level receive, though. While it is easy for some lawmakers to look good in opposing food stamps, they neglect to mention the 14 other forms of financial help being distributed to people across the nation, such as free cash assistance, subsidized housing, free medical care, free child care, and home energy assistance.
Reaction- Seeing the numbers of how the U.S's spending on welfare is far exceeding the spending on important things that can effect our hardworking Americans pushes me to think that we are being much to helpful to some people who may be very undeserving. The thought of how much money would be saved or elsewhere distributed if the some of the welfare programs didn't give out so much money is astonishing. Where as there are some families who are in need of programs such as cash assistance, there are also many people who I believe are just sponging of the government, almost putting many hardworking Americans who work everyday for their money at a disadvantage. Don't get me wrong, i'm all for helping those in need, and if the U.S government has an extra 3.7 trillion dollars a year lying around then by all means we should continue what we are doing, but I know that we do not have that kind of money just to throw around and there are far more useful things that it could be used for. The U.S. should get their priorities straight and stop giving 5th or 6th chances to those individuals who don't deserve them.
Connection- This relates to AP Government in that the federalism which allows both state and central government to grant welfare to individuals also has the right to decrease our spending on welfare and put a dent in the 3.7 trillion dollars a year that we spend on it. It is the decisions made at both the state and central level that has caused us the spend this much every year.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Alexander Flax - Economics 2
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/10/29/us-no-longer-among-20-most-economically-prosperous-countries
Summary: Using a Prosperity Index that came out of an investment firm in Dubai, America was ranked the 24th in economic prosperity. This low ranking may be due to the fact that the index measures GDP growth rather than just GDP. The low ranking could also be due the average amount saved per capita, America's being 11.1% whereas the global average is 20.1%. Conversely, America's low economic prosperity rating may be because the general population has little faith in banks. All possible reasons for the low rating could be attributed to the recent recession that affected the economy and how Americans view financial institutions.
Reaction: Upon reading the article, initially I wondered why the author chose the countries they did to compare America's economic prosperity to. I'm not surprised to learn that our country's rating dropped, especially with the recession some argue we still haven't gotten out of. If there is less GDP in a country then of course the GDP growth will be negligible or possibly even negative. I think it is very interesting that only 37.5% of Americans "have confidence in financial institutions," this possibly being a sign of the negative impact of our current banking system in America. Lastly, I was shocked to find out that the U.S. ranks 11th on the Prosperity Index as a whole, which includes factors like health, education, and governance.
Connection: One of the main challenges to American democracy is the escalation of campaign costs. As campaigns are influenced by more money, the wealthier, private banks will support legislature and candidates that will affect banks in a positive way. These decisions could in turn leave the general population in a less advantageous position, possibly being a reason for American's lack of trust and confidence in its financial institutions.
Summary: Using a Prosperity Index that came out of an investment firm in Dubai, America was ranked the 24th in economic prosperity. This low ranking may be due to the fact that the index measures GDP growth rather than just GDP. The low ranking could also be due the average amount saved per capita, America's being 11.1% whereas the global average is 20.1%. Conversely, America's low economic prosperity rating may be because the general population has little faith in banks. All possible reasons for the low rating could be attributed to the recent recession that affected the economy and how Americans view financial institutions.
Reaction: Upon reading the article, initially I wondered why the author chose the countries they did to compare America's economic prosperity to. I'm not surprised to learn that our country's rating dropped, especially with the recession some argue we still haven't gotten out of. If there is less GDP in a country then of course the GDP growth will be negligible or possibly even negative. I think it is very interesting that only 37.5% of Americans "have confidence in financial institutions," this possibly being a sign of the negative impact of our current banking system in America. Lastly, I was shocked to find out that the U.S. ranks 11th on the Prosperity Index as a whole, which includes factors like health, education, and governance.
Connection: One of the main challenges to American democracy is the escalation of campaign costs. As campaigns are influenced by more money, the wealthier, private banks will support legislature and candidates that will affect banks in a positive way. These decisions could in turn leave the general population in a less advantageous position, possibly being a reason for American's lack of trust and confidence in its financial institutions.
Post 2 - Ryan Kline - Social Welfare
Public Housing Residents Relying on Agency Still Recovering From Storm - NYTimes.com
Summary:
People displaced by Hurricane Sandy to public housing have still not returned home. Those affected have stated that NYCHA and the Gov't have made little to no progress in fixing the issue. Even though they have received nearly $220 million in grants and insurance, NYCHA has yet to fix a multitude of problems with public housing or or repairing the original homes of the displaced and despite promises from the govt to make drastic changes, citizens remain skeptical.
Reaction:
It actually very surprising that this still remains an issue. It has been almost a year since Hurricane Sandy and with the magnitude of the event, I would have thought that getting the citizens that were displaced back into regular would have been top priority. It's pretty sad that people who's houses were destroyed by the storm were moved into housing that wasn't notably better.
Connection:
This article is directly related to the federalism and how grant money is distributed. Even though hundreds of millions of dollars of aid have been received, the inefficiency of the bureaucracy has delayed any significant progress that can be made with that money.
Summary:
People displaced by Hurricane Sandy to public housing have still not returned home. Those affected have stated that NYCHA and the Gov't have made little to no progress in fixing the issue. Even though they have received nearly $220 million in grants and insurance, NYCHA has yet to fix a multitude of problems with public housing or or repairing the original homes of the displaced and despite promises from the govt to make drastic changes, citizens remain skeptical.
Reaction:
It actually very surprising that this still remains an issue. It has been almost a year since Hurricane Sandy and with the magnitude of the event, I would have thought that getting the citizens that were displaced back into regular would have been top priority. It's pretty sad that people who's houses were destroyed by the storm were moved into housing that wasn't notably better.
Connection:
This article is directly related to the federalism and how grant money is distributed. Even though hundreds of millions of dollars of aid have been received, the inefficiency of the bureaucracy has delayed any significant progress that can be made with that money.
Post 2 - Economics Katherine Baer
Critical failures lead to Social Security overpayments
http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/29/pf/social-security-overpayments/
Summary: The Government Accountability Office (GOA) discovered that the Social Security Administration has been overpaying disability beneficiaries. The overpayment come to a shocking total of $1.3 billion over the last two years. Overpayment occurs when beneficiaries pick up work or make too much money to receive social security, but continue to receive checks from the agencies. These people generally take the checks, and spend them. Some people do not realize they are being overpaid, and continue their lives as usual. Others contact the agency for confirmation and get removed from the list. Some know they should not be receiving social security, but continue to use the checks anyway; these people are considered frauds. Whatever the case may be, many innocent people have been affected by the overpayments. Some are completely unaware that they have been overpaid, and are in shock when a notice comes in the mail telling them that they owe the government thousands of dollars. For many, coming up with this kind of money causes a lot of stress and takes a toll on the victims. These people with disabilities have enough trouble functioning to maintain a job without this additional trouble. The Social Security Agency admits that they have been short on funding and have fewer workers than in the past. They have been so backed up on getting people on social security that they haven't been able to remove people. Hence, the overpayments. People can appeal to a court about the payments. However, many do not have the financial means necessary to afford an attorney. This means that they must work out a payment plan (based on income) with the Social Security Agency. Social Security is supposed to benefit the most vulnerable people in our society, and in this case, the people that should be helped are becoming victims.
Reaction: I think the Social Security Administration is put in a tough situation. Virtually, they have to choose between putting people on social security or taking people off. They simply do not have the staffing or funding to focus on both. Because they can't manage both, other innocent people pay the price...literally. Overpayment has cost the US government $1.3 billion in the past two years, which is definitely much more money than it would take fund to Social Security Administration a bit more so they can hire workers to focus on taking people off social security. This would prevent overpayment with little cost to the government compared to what they have been paying in overpayments. I think it's very unfortunate that people who do not realize they are being overpaid are required to repay the government. It is not fair to these people. Looking at the notice above the article I read, I can say that I didn't understand what was being said to the receiver. You can't possibly tell me that someone with a type of disability is going to be able to understand that. That's what is unfortunate. We can't say that as a government we are trying to help these people out, when we send recipients unclear messages, almost taking advantage of them. I think it's very sad that these people with disabilities are put in such a stressful and unnecessary situation.
Connection to AP Government: This can be connected to political typology and the different view points on social security and the government spending money to fund people with disabilities. Liberals feel that is acceptable to spend government money this way, while conservatives would be strongly opposed. Conservatives would comment on the overpayment by saying that this would not at all be a problem if the government didn't provide money to the beneficiaries at all. The liberals would continue to support social security in providing funds to people with disability, but would raise concerns about the overpayment as well. The federal government will likely need to focus in on this issue for awhile, and taking time to consider it as a political issue and decide if it is a concern to be implemented in the policy agenda.
Post #2 Economics - Matt Ernster
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/the-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-financial-crisis/?ref=economy
Summary: In 2006, home prices began to rise on a record rate. The rapid growth may be coming to an end though. Recent statistics show that the rise may be slowing or stopping. The growth went from 12.8% to 12.4 % in the last 12 months. Though the weak job market keeps buyers hesitant, mortgage rates have rose form their record lows. Even though the consumer confidence has dropped from 80% to 71.2%, it has since risen slightly. Although many statistics are working against them, home prices seem to be starting to decline. Many researchers support this theory and hope it is true.
Reaction: I thought that it was very surprising how much the home prices had skyrocketed since 2006, and how they seem to be finally stopping that. Home prices are a huge factor in America's economy. I think that house prices may not continue to increase, however. The government is in debate over Americas budget, and changes to that could effect the house market. Any major cuts could lead to houses rising once again, and nobody wants that to happen.
Connection: This obviously connects to everybody, because most everybody will one day be looking to buy property. This relates to our AP Government class because the American government is sure to rise or take hits from the house market. The house market can be helped with new policies in which we would study for our class. Everybody will probably look to buy housing some day and they should try to help it now, so the prices will be lower in the future.
Summary: In 2006, home prices began to rise on a record rate. The rapid growth may be coming to an end though. Recent statistics show that the rise may be slowing or stopping. The growth went from 12.8% to 12.4 % in the last 12 months. Though the weak job market keeps buyers hesitant, mortgage rates have rose form their record lows. Even though the consumer confidence has dropped from 80% to 71.2%, it has since risen slightly. Although many statistics are working against them, home prices seem to be starting to decline. Many researchers support this theory and hope it is true.
Reaction: I thought that it was very surprising how much the home prices had skyrocketed since 2006, and how they seem to be finally stopping that. Home prices are a huge factor in America's economy. I think that house prices may not continue to increase, however. The government is in debate over Americas budget, and changes to that could effect the house market. Any major cuts could lead to houses rising once again, and nobody wants that to happen.
Connection: This obviously connects to everybody, because most everybody will one day be looking to buy property. This relates to our AP Government class because the American government is sure to rise or take hits from the house market. The house market can be helped with new policies in which we would study for our class. Everybody will probably look to buy housing some day and they should try to help it now, so the prices will be lower in the future.
Zach Mouw: Welfare North Carolina
Summary:
At the time of the partial government shutdown, the state of North Carolina was the first to cut welfare to it's citizens. Over 20,000 people, a large percentage of them children, in the "Work First" program were not allowed to apply for their monthly benefit until the shutdown was resolved. Portions of the state also lost TANF grants which support childcare. North Carolina does have a "rainy day" program which has 650 million dollars worth of funds to be used in emergencies but did not activate it even though the welfare budget for September was only 4.8 million. WIC benefits, which support poor mothers with young children, were also considered to be cut, but the state's budget director stepped in to provide funding to keep the program active.
Reaction:
I think this shows what kind of disaster was avoided during the government shutdown. North Carolina was the only state to cut any welfare benefits. If every state had cut it's federal-funded welfare programs, there could have been a massive number of people with no source of income and no way to support their families. It also seems astonishing that the rainy day program was not utilized, considering that it was to be used in emergency situations. A cutoff of income for thousands of families for an entire month which could cause poverty rates in the state to skyrocket, sounds like an emergency to me.
Connection:
This is a good example of how federalism has benefited our country. If there was no concept of state government or if it had no power, then the WIC benefits would have been stopped, this would be around 70,000 people losing benefits for their children. The other 49 states would have also been in the same situation, as no state-funded programs would be in existence.
At the time of the partial government shutdown, the state of North Carolina was the first to cut welfare to it's citizens. Over 20,000 people, a large percentage of them children, in the "Work First" program were not allowed to apply for their monthly benefit until the shutdown was resolved. Portions of the state also lost TANF grants which support childcare. North Carolina does have a "rainy day" program which has 650 million dollars worth of funds to be used in emergencies but did not activate it even though the welfare budget for September was only 4.8 million. WIC benefits, which support poor mothers with young children, were also considered to be cut, but the state's budget director stepped in to provide funding to keep the program active.
Reaction:
I think this shows what kind of disaster was avoided during the government shutdown. North Carolina was the only state to cut any welfare benefits. If every state had cut it's federal-funded welfare programs, there could have been a massive number of people with no source of income and no way to support their families. It also seems astonishing that the rainy day program was not utilized, considering that it was to be used in emergency situations. A cutoff of income for thousands of families for an entire month which could cause poverty rates in the state to skyrocket, sounds like an emergency to me.
Connection:
This is a good example of how federalism has benefited our country. If there was no concept of state government or if it had no power, then the WIC benefits would have been stopped, this would be around 70,000 people losing benefits for their children. The other 49 states would have also been in the same situation, as no state-funded programs would be in existence.
Lawrence Social Welfare 2
http://kbia.org/post/missouri-association-social-welfare-opposes-sales-tax
Summary: In the state of Missouri, the state would like to get money in order to repair and improve roads. The controversy is raising state taxes and the affect it will have on people with lesser incomes. Although is is necessary to maintain roads, especially for safety, the Missouri Association of Social Welfare realizes that this increase in tax would have a negative affect on those who are recipients of lesser incomes. Some ideas that are being raised are progressing income tax, which makes those who make a substancual amount of money, pay more tax on their income instead of having regressive sales taxes. The other idea is using regresive sales tax, but giving those with a lesser income, a refund to help them pay the bills. Currently, a petition is being worked on and will be sent to the Secretary of State's Office.
Reaction: I believe that creating a larger tax for those with a higher income would have a better affect overal as state. I do believe maintaining the roads is important for not just state residents, but also for everyone who goes through Missouri. Increasing the income tax for people with a certain income and higher is a good idea because it still gives those in need, money without increasing the tax on them.
Connection: This relates to AP gov because It helps us understand taxes which are a key revenue source for the government. This article helps us understand the difference between sales tax and income tax and how it affects different income groups. Sales taxes are something that everyone pays the same for. Whereas income taxes, the government can choose how much to tax a certain income group.
Summary: In the state of Missouri, the state would like to get money in order to repair and improve roads. The controversy is raising state taxes and the affect it will have on people with lesser incomes. Although is is necessary to maintain roads, especially for safety, the Missouri Association of Social Welfare realizes that this increase in tax would have a negative affect on those who are recipients of lesser incomes. Some ideas that are being raised are progressing income tax, which makes those who make a substancual amount of money, pay more tax on their income instead of having regressive sales taxes. The other idea is using regresive sales tax, but giving those with a lesser income, a refund to help them pay the bills. Currently, a petition is being worked on and will be sent to the Secretary of State's Office.
Reaction: I believe that creating a larger tax for those with a higher income would have a better affect overal as state. I do believe maintaining the roads is important for not just state residents, but also for everyone who goes through Missouri. Increasing the income tax for people with a certain income and higher is a good idea because it still gives those in need, money without increasing the tax on them.
Connection: This relates to AP gov because It helps us understand taxes which are a key revenue source for the government. This article helps us understand the difference between sales tax and income tax and how it affects different income groups. Sales taxes are something that everyone pays the same for. Whereas income taxes, the government can choose how much to tax a certain income group.
The Second Chuck Klutho I, Social Welfare
Summary: The WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children) is a form of welfare for mothers and children. WIC is a 7 billion dollar a year program that was largely at risk during the government shutdown due to the fact that it is not an entitlement program like school lunches. One reason that it was one of the most at risk programs was because a large portion of it is done on,y on the Internet and the USDA website that it uses was down during the shutdown. That put northward of 9 million people at risk of losing the main source of their food, and with no real substantial income they would be at great risk. Also according to many users of WIC when they went to get food their was "confusion reigning".
Reaction: My reaction to this article is really a lot of shock as to how such an awful thing could nearly happen. Those were 9 million low-income mothers, children, and infants that could have starved if the government shutdown had continued longer then it did. I was also surprised by the fact that with all of the news coverage on the shutdown that I never once heard this come up. Lastly, I think the fact that most of the program was on the Internet really shows how much our society depends on technology that at times can be so uncontrollable and easy to disrupt with viruses and other things, as what is being seen now with the ObamaCare website.
Connection: This ties into what we talk about in class in a couple of ways. One way is with the Devil in Devolution assignment that we had last week, one principle which was compared to a herdsman and his sheep can be applied here. With the government and the general public so concerned and doing stuff about the debt ceiling, the government shutdown shutting down programs that millions of Americans rely on and that is worth billions of dollars. Another way is that with another part of devolution if the power to fund the WIC was divided for each state to have to do it, than it would be easier to control and would not be affected by the federal government shutdown.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/10/2/vulnerable-mothersfearfalloutasshutdownthreatenswicprogram.html
Reaction: My reaction to this article is really a lot of shock as to how such an awful thing could nearly happen. Those were 9 million low-income mothers, children, and infants that could have starved if the government shutdown had continued longer then it did. I was also surprised by the fact that with all of the news coverage on the shutdown that I never once heard this come up. Lastly, I think the fact that most of the program was on the Internet really shows how much our society depends on technology that at times can be so uncontrollable and easy to disrupt with viruses and other things, as what is being seen now with the ObamaCare website.
Connection: This ties into what we talk about in class in a couple of ways. One way is with the Devil in Devolution assignment that we had last week, one principle which was compared to a herdsman and his sheep can be applied here. With the government and the general public so concerned and doing stuff about the debt ceiling, the government shutdown shutting down programs that millions of Americans rely on and that is worth billions of dollars. Another way is that with another part of devolution if the power to fund the WIC was divided for each state to have to do it, than it would be easier to control and would not be affected by the federal government shutdown.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/10/2/vulnerable-mothersfearfalloutasshutdownthreatenswicprogram.html
Post 2, Carter Himmelman Social welfare
www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/sunday-review /being-legal-doesn't-end-poverty.html
Being Legal Doesn't End Poverty
Summary: In Los Angeles they are wanting a law be made for immigration. They want to create a path of citizenship to the illegal immigrants. They want this so they come out of hiding and it will help them climb up the economic ladder. Even if they become a full citizen they will still be broke because they will have low wage jobs. Many of the immigrants jobs are domestic jobs that pay in cash so the employer doesn't have to pay taxes. Also they are working very hard because they have to do many things that involve physical labor. The illegal immigrants will work so they can get a reasonable income. If they pass the immigration bill, the bill will create a lot larger work force and it would raise the average wage.
Reaction: I have many mixed emotions about this bill. I see why this bill could be good and why this could be bad. I could see why this is good because the immigrants can get money. If they become citizens and they get an income they can provide for themselves. This is good because right now American tax payers have to pay for illegal immigrants. They pay for them to be in hospitals and many other things. Why I think this is bad is because they are already illegal and they are not suppose to be here and they need to go back to their home countries. They are taking jobs away from unemployed Americans. If they pass this bill it will just make more people immigrate to this country so they can get a job and provide for their family.
Connection: This bill would be connected to our class in many ways. One way that it is connected is because when the workers are working for below minimum wage and they are having to do a lot this is in violation of labor laws. Another way that it connects is that we are providing for the immigrants that are in poverty. This is because we are having to pay taxes for government policies.
Matt Cassady Economy 2
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-usa-economy-paynet-20131029,0,6268571.story
Summary : So basically what this article talks about small business borrowing has rose this last month. This means that signaling moderate growth is ahead for the economy. It measures that financing for small business were down 6 % in August and up 16 % this time last year. September had a rise of 11 % compared to 7 % at the beginning of the year. Throughout history Pay index has correlated to overall economic growth one or two quarters of the future. small companies will take out loans to buy new materials they will need around the office. Last month the federal reserve's decision was that the economy wasn't strong enough to justify reductions in this program. Which had small businesses paying back more and more loans for future borrowing. So basically our economy isn't that strong but this year at this time it was roughly 10x weaker.
Reaction: My reaction to this is bad to see small businesses borrowing so much because they don't make enough form there own business because of the bad economy so they need money from the government. Also it's good to see that our economy is up seven percent right now compared to what the year started of at. But also that small businesses are starting to pay back for the loans that they have bought.
Connection: This article connects to AP American Government because in our government the economy is an important part to having a successful company and even though that people still think of it as still a bad economy we are up 6% then we were a year ago at this time in financing small companies.
Summary : So basically what this article talks about small business borrowing has rose this last month. This means that signaling moderate growth is ahead for the economy. It measures that financing for small business were down 6 % in August and up 16 % this time last year. September had a rise of 11 % compared to 7 % at the beginning of the year. Throughout history Pay index has correlated to overall economic growth one or two quarters of the future. small companies will take out loans to buy new materials they will need around the office. Last month the federal reserve's decision was that the economy wasn't strong enough to justify reductions in this program. Which had small businesses paying back more and more loans for future borrowing. So basically our economy isn't that strong but this year at this time it was roughly 10x weaker.
Reaction: My reaction to this is bad to see small businesses borrowing so much because they don't make enough form there own business because of the bad economy so they need money from the government. Also it's good to see that our economy is up seven percent right now compared to what the year started of at. But also that small businesses are starting to pay back for the loans that they have bought.
Connection: This article connects to AP American Government because in our government the economy is an important part to having a successful company and even though that people still think of it as still a bad economy we are up 6% then we were a year ago at this time in financing small companies.
Maya D - Economy 2
http://economyincrisis.org/content/major-economic-problems-facing-united-states
Summary- This article talks about how far the economy has fallen in the last few years. It points out that the United States is behind not only economically but in others ways also. This includes how we are unable to support our selves and rely on foreign trade. It stresses the importance of managing our money by reducing reliance on our countries. It says that once the country has regained control of its own trade and market and stop banking on the production and trade of other countries of it will stop being and so much debt and start being self proficienct.
Reaction- I believe that the debt that the country is in goes much deeper than solely depending on foreign trade. Even though our involvement with other countries may influence our amount of debt I believe that it is not the main factor. There are other things that the government should be worried about first.
Connection-This connects to how the public views our government. The media may portray what they determine as important and news worthy which is then biased. In this article they show one aspect as to why our country has fallen behind. This is biased towards how they feel because they only talk about the one part that is on their agenda as a media source.
Summary- This article talks about how far the economy has fallen in the last few years. It points out that the United States is behind not only economically but in others ways also. This includes how we are unable to support our selves and rely on foreign trade. It stresses the importance of managing our money by reducing reliance on our countries. It says that once the country has regained control of its own trade and market and stop banking on the production and trade of other countries of it will stop being and so much debt and start being self proficienct.
Reaction- I believe that the debt that the country is in goes much deeper than solely depending on foreign trade. Even though our involvement with other countries may influence our amount of debt I believe that it is not the main factor. There are other things that the government should be worried about first.
Connection-This connects to how the public views our government. The media may portray what they determine as important and news worthy which is then biased. In this article they show one aspect as to why our country has fallen behind. This is biased towards how they feel because they only talk about the one part that is on their agenda as a media source.
Alex Connor Economy 2
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/the-quality-of-jobs-the-new-normal-and-the-old-normal/
The Quality of Jobs: The New Normal and the Old Normal
Summarize: As the recession began, and many people were laid off, many people have had to take part time jobs just to make ends meet. Unfortunately, these part time jobs include much manual labor and too much of a reduced paycheck to help make ends meet. Over the last year, over 40% of jobs made have been in low-wage jobs ($7.69- $13.83) including retail, hotels, and temporary help agencies. And those who would normally have middle income jobs, are being replaced with computers and technology. The value of minimum wage today is also a lot less than what it was valued at in 1970.This is bad because even though the economy is recovering from the Great Recession in 2007, low wages and people having to find part time jobs because full time jobs are unavailable, makes it hard for individuals in the economy to grow. Another thing that is hurting the economy as the economy is trying to grow is wage distribution. Individual leaders of a company for example managers, owners, and CEO's are taking too much of the companies income instead of distributing it more evenly.
Reaction: My reaction to this is that I am shocked that people working hard are getting payed less than what they would have in the 1970's. I think that the government is not taking the right steps to get the economy out of the gutter and relying on the outliers (super rich or super poor) to determine how the economy as a whole is doing. I also think that it is outrageous that middle class families whose parents have a college degree have to find work at a part time job because technology is taking over jobs they would typically due. Although the amount of those who are unemployed have decreased since the recession, it's not helping that jobs that would be available are being replaced with computers. Overall I think that the federal government needs to reevaluate what is happening with the economy to reassure that there isn't another recession.
Connection: What I think best connects to this article in the book is how the author gathered her information about the economy. She most likely got her information based off of statistics and polls that was gathered through random sampling. If the author had gotten the minimum wages in just one state that was high income than she probably would have different information compared to if she got a national average. Because of random sampling, the author got a most likely accurate representation of how America is doing.
Reaction: My reaction to this is that I am shocked that people working hard are getting payed less than what they would have in the 1970's. I think that the government is not taking the right steps to get the economy out of the gutter and relying on the outliers (super rich or super poor) to determine how the economy as a whole is doing. I also think that it is outrageous that middle class families whose parents have a college degree have to find work at a part time job because technology is taking over jobs they would typically due. Although the amount of those who are unemployed have decreased since the recession, it's not helping that jobs that would be available are being replaced with computers. Overall I think that the federal government needs to reevaluate what is happening with the economy to reassure that there isn't another recession.
Connection: What I think best connects to this article in the book is how the author gathered her information about the economy. She most likely got her information based off of statistics and polls that was gathered through random sampling. If the author had gotten the minimum wages in just one state that was high income than she probably would have different information compared to if she got a national average. Because of random sampling, the author got a most likely accurate representation of how America is doing.
Fredy Stroker
National Security (Part 2)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/syrias-ability-to-launch-chemical-attack-said-to-be-limited-after-key-equipment-destroyed/2013/10/28/71c4a5dc-401d-11e3-a624-41d661b0bb78_story.html
Summary: In the past four weeks, international inspectors have destroyed almost all of the chemical warfare equipment used by Syria. Many of these weapons killed over 1000 Syrians in the month of August alone. Inspection team said on Monday that they had visited and destroyed 2 of the 23 sites claimed by Syria. The Obama administration is cautiously optimistic that Syria's entire arsenal could be eliminated by early summer. Syria's stockpile of equipment consists of chemicals that must be mechanically mixed and injected into missiles or bombs. Syria gave up much of its stockpile after the Obama administration threatened to to launch a military strike in punishment for attacking 2 suburbs with sarin on August 12. Although the inspectors have not reached 2 of the 23 sites, the Syrian government has cooperated with the teams; giving them access and providing security.
Reaction: The article stated that these inspectors are international, so I wonder what countries they are from and if any of them are possibly from the U.S. I did not know that Syria had such a threat globally with their chemical weapons, but I don't believe the have the power to launch a full scale attack on another country anymore. If the government is agreeing for these inspectors to destroy the weapons, and are even offering protection through security, then who has power over these weapons? Does the military (run by the government) own these sites?
Connection: This connects to the quiz that we took online that showed us whether we are democrats or republicans and what type we were. Democrats are usually against war and using military force. This, however, contradicts what the Obama administration is supposed to believe because he is a democrat. This shows that although there are politics parties, that doesn't mean that they have to believe everything that is liberal or conservative. They can have some views that could be either or, which was shown in my quiz results which showed me as a libertarian. I had most views that were conservative but some that we liberal.
Melissa Weinstein National Security
Summary: Two terrorists were killed by drone strikes Monday near Jilib, Somalia. The men were members of al Shabaab, a group linked to al Qaeda. Of the men killed, one was associated with past suicide bombings, and al Shabaab has been responsible for numerous terrorists plots including the September attack on the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya. US officials earlier this month had attempted to capture a leader of al Shabaab, Mohamed Abdikadir (known as “Ikrima”), along the Somalian coast, but were unsuccessful. Ikrima has close ties to top al Qaeda officials. According to American military personnel, though unable to capture Ikrima, the raid served as a threat to al Shabaab, proving that the US can “put pressure” on the group at any moment.
Reaction: The first issue addressed in the article regarded the use of drone warfare. This technique ensures the safety of Americans, and as the strike on Monday proved, it can wipe out targets who are a threat to the nation. However, the use of drones can be compared to a video game. It desensitizes war in general as men are not on the ground fighting, which can be seen as a pro or con, depending on the person. I do not know all of the specifics with this type of warfare and nothing is foolproof, but it seems to accomplish necessary tasks with a minimal number of unintended casualties. Also, while it is vital to either capture or kill these radicals, the nation’s list of wanted terrorists appears to be never ending. The article did not go into detail as to why the attempt to capture Ikrima failed, so it is difficult to say whether or not it put pressure on the terrorist group, as our nation’s military personnel stated. It is, in my opinion, important for the US to take action when the security of the country is at stake. If Ikrima is a serious threat to the American people, then such an operation needed to be carried out, and hopefully the military can cut off his ties to al Shabaab promptly.
Connection: This topic relates to the political ideologies we have been studying in chapter six. Though these are general assumptions, those who take a liberal standpoint do not believe in fighting fire with fire. Strong diplomatic relations with other nations ensure the safety of the country. However, this is difficult to do with terrorist groups. America is not at war with a specific country, rather groups of people spread all over the Middle East (typically). Conservatives tend to disagree. The use of military force, in their opinion, is necessary to end terrorism and gathering intelligence is vital. These conflicting viewpoints oftentimes lead to disagreements regarding the proper way to handle major conflicts, such as the “War on Terrorism”.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Brandon Huecksteadt Social Welfare 2
Billionaire's Row and Welfare Lines
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/26/opinion/blow-billionaires-row-and-welfare-lines.html?_r=0
Summary: While the stock market is doing far better than it has in a long time and the rich and wealthy are benifiting greatly, the poor and less-fortunate are doing worse than usual. We are in the slowest job recovery since World War II and according to the New York Times, our unemployment rate is only falling because the unemployed have given up on looking for a job. The rate of people searching for jobs fell to its lowest rating in 35 years. Almost 6 million people between the age of 18 and 24 are either unemployed or not in school. With nearly 1/4 Americans living in poverty, it may seem like we are doing better, but there's alot more we could be doing to help everyone.
Reaction: I see a lot of different statistics on poverty and they are all different. I see that 1/10 Americans are in poverty and that 1/4 Americans are in poverty, but I don't know which one to believe. Reguardless of the statistics, I have always hated that in any country that the government would allow people to be misserable and poor for the majority of their lives. I think poverty should be the first thing on the policy agenda untill it is resolved. I think that with all of our billionaires that they could give some of their money to help those in need, but sadley, many don't care for others and only think about themselves.
Connection. In the Quad Cities, there are many homeless people, but much more middle-class and rich people. I feel like we could all just pitch in a little bit of money, we could help everyone in the area get on their feet. Poverty isn't something we should shrug our shoulders at and just accept. This could be an easy problem to overcome if we all just pitched in. I think its unbelieveable that people can be so oblivious to the major problems going on around them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/26/opinion/blow-billionaires-row-and-welfare-lines.html?_r=0
Summary: While the stock market is doing far better than it has in a long time and the rich and wealthy are benifiting greatly, the poor and less-fortunate are doing worse than usual. We are in the slowest job recovery since World War II and according to the New York Times, our unemployment rate is only falling because the unemployed have given up on looking for a job. The rate of people searching for jobs fell to its lowest rating in 35 years. Almost 6 million people between the age of 18 and 24 are either unemployed or not in school. With nearly 1/4 Americans living in poverty, it may seem like we are doing better, but there's alot more we could be doing to help everyone.
Reaction: I see a lot of different statistics on poverty and they are all different. I see that 1/10 Americans are in poverty and that 1/4 Americans are in poverty, but I don't know which one to believe. Reguardless of the statistics, I have always hated that in any country that the government would allow people to be misserable and poor for the majority of their lives. I think poverty should be the first thing on the policy agenda untill it is resolved. I think that with all of our billionaires that they could give some of their money to help those in need, but sadley, many don't care for others and only think about themselves.
Connection. In the Quad Cities, there are many homeless people, but much more middle-class and rich people. I feel like we could all just pitch in a little bit of money, we could help everyone in the area get on their feet. Poverty isn't something we should shrug our shoulders at and just accept. This could be an easy problem to overcome if we all just pitched in. I think its unbelieveable that people can be so oblivious to the major problems going on around them.
Libby Weaver: National Security #2
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/10/28/feinstein-totally-opposed-to-spying-on-foreign-leaders/
Summary: Earlier this week, the president and the Senate Intelligence Comittee that the NSA has been collecting communications from allied leaders. One of the leaders being German chancellor Angela Merkel, who is, for the lack of better words, pissed that our government has been has been collecting her phone records for what may be 10 years. Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the head of the Senate Intelligence Comittee, is outraged that the NSA was behind this. She states that unless that we are in hostilities with the country, then there is no need for surveillance. The article goes on to say how Feinstein has always been a supported of the NSA until now.
Reaction: Okay. So after last weeks blogs, I've learned a lot about the NSA. Now, I know I'm not an expert, but to me, this is a really shady part of the government. Sure there's always a slim chance of 'there's a threat everywhere', but this is way too extreme. Going behind everyone's back to spy on allies is wrong. It's like the kid who can get away with cheating for so long before he gets caught and is screwed. That's us right now. We're kind of screwed. We could potentially lose these allies just because of our paranoia. This operation caused more harm than good.
Connection: This topic relates to the power, or lack of power our government really has. The Patriot Act was created by Bush after the attack on 9/11 with good intentions. This act lets the government tap phone calls and emails of suspected terrorists. But is everyone a suspected terrorist or is the paranoia allowing us to abuse our powers?
Summary: Earlier this week, the president and the Senate Intelligence Comittee that the NSA has been collecting communications from allied leaders. One of the leaders being German chancellor Angela Merkel, who is, for the lack of better words, pissed that our government has been has been collecting her phone records for what may be 10 years. Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the head of the Senate Intelligence Comittee, is outraged that the NSA was behind this. She states that unless that we are in hostilities with the country, then there is no need for surveillance. The article goes on to say how Feinstein has always been a supported of the NSA until now.
Reaction: Okay. So after last weeks blogs, I've learned a lot about the NSA. Now, I know I'm not an expert, but to me, this is a really shady part of the government. Sure there's always a slim chance of 'there's a threat everywhere', but this is way too extreme. Going behind everyone's back to spy on allies is wrong. It's like the kid who can get away with cheating for so long before he gets caught and is screwed. That's us right now. We're kind of screwed. We could potentially lose these allies just because of our paranoia. This operation caused more harm than good.
Connection: This topic relates to the power, or lack of power our government really has. The Patriot Act was created by Bush after the attack on 9/11 with good intentions. This act lets the government tap phone calls and emails of suspected terrorists. But is everyone a suspected terrorist or is the paranoia allowing us to abuse our powers?
Morgan Estok- Health Care #1
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/us/politics/health-site-puts-agency-and-leader-in-hot-seat.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&ref=politics
Summary: This article was about Marilyn Tavenner, the federal bureaucrat whose agency's (Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services) job was to construct and implement the new Obamacare website. The website was put in place by the federal government as a way for people to buy different health care plans, however, the moment it went live, it crashed and malfunctioned. Now, Ms. Tavenner is facing House Republicans on Capitol Hill and, more specifically, the House Ways and Means Committee about the failure of the website. Her boss will also have to face a House Panel about the problematic website. Many Republicans feel that someone in the Obama administration needs to be held responsible for the faulty site and, therefore, it leads them to the Medicaid and Medicare services. Republicans will question Tavenner about how much she partook in the development of the site. Many people are saying this is simply a dispute that has plagued Congress for months now, it simply comes down to the fact that "Democrats want to make it work and Republicans don't.".
Reaction: This article, honestly, struck me as a little bit strange and immature. It makes Republicans look like complete babies, trying to grill some woman about the inadequacies of a webpage.Yes, it was her and her agency's' job to oversee the site, but there was no way they could have predicted the bottle-necking of the site, which led to a crash. They are just truly dragging their feet and in a very obvious manner. The Republicans need to realize that these little roadblocks aren't going to stop the new health care policies and finding someone to blame other than the Obama administration isn't going to do the trick either. However, I do find it strange that the White House chose that particular agency to develop the site. It's almost like, now that you've got the stuff passed, you should at least make sure it's carried out correctly and without error.
Connection: This is a true representation of the problematic aspects of political parties. We sometimes praise the distribution of power and our representation, but the parties seem to blur the marvelousness of our political system. Once again, you have Republicans against Democrats, and again, it causes slow policy implementation and inefficient government.
Summary: This article was about Marilyn Tavenner, the federal bureaucrat whose agency's (Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services) job was to construct and implement the new Obamacare website. The website was put in place by the federal government as a way for people to buy different health care plans, however, the moment it went live, it crashed and malfunctioned. Now, Ms. Tavenner is facing House Republicans on Capitol Hill and, more specifically, the House Ways and Means Committee about the failure of the website. Her boss will also have to face a House Panel about the problematic website. Many Republicans feel that someone in the Obama administration needs to be held responsible for the faulty site and, therefore, it leads them to the Medicaid and Medicare services. Republicans will question Tavenner about how much she partook in the development of the site. Many people are saying this is simply a dispute that has plagued Congress for months now, it simply comes down to the fact that "Democrats want to make it work and Republicans don't.".
Reaction: This article, honestly, struck me as a little bit strange and immature. It makes Republicans look like complete babies, trying to grill some woman about the inadequacies of a webpage.Yes, it was her and her agency's' job to oversee the site, but there was no way they could have predicted the bottle-necking of the site, which led to a crash. They are just truly dragging their feet and in a very obvious manner. The Republicans need to realize that these little roadblocks aren't going to stop the new health care policies and finding someone to blame other than the Obama administration isn't going to do the trick either. However, I do find it strange that the White House chose that particular agency to develop the site. It's almost like, now that you've got the stuff passed, you should at least make sure it's carried out correctly and without error.
Connection: This is a true representation of the problematic aspects of political parties. We sometimes praise the distribution of power and our representation, but the parties seem to blur the marvelousness of our political system. Once again, you have Republicans against Democrats, and again, it causes slow policy implementation and inefficient government.
Christine Vincent National Security #2
Summary: Senior Defense Department officials have recently speaking with China, as well as having personal visits with Chinese officials to create a strengthened relationship. Gen. Mark A. Welsh III, the Air Force chief of staff, just returned from China. This was the first visit there by the Navy’s top officer in 15 years. The chief of naval operations, Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert, recently hosted his chinese counterpart here and is expected to do so again in the near future. The fact that he will visit twice within the same year is remarkable. Officials are working to create a much friendlier relationship with China but the recent problems with the budget in congress resulted in a cancellation of President Obama’s visit. Due to high tension for many years, improving relations with China will greatly increase national security.
Connection: There was a part in the middle of the article that discussed different viewpoints on what the military should do in response to these new relations. On one hand, in a perfect world America would try to solve every problem by making peace and creating an ally. This is would be the liberal’s argument. But on the other hand, in a practical world, America must have a strong and vibrant military because it is not likely that we will make allies with everyone. This would be the conservative’s argument. This relates to what we have recently discussed about the opposing opinions of different political groups. Also, delays in congress barred the president from being able to travel to China to discuss peaceful relations. This demonstrates one of the disadvantages of federalism, as discussed in chapter 3.
Reaction: I am glad to hear that we are increasing relations with China. It is always beneficial to create more allies. That being said, I do not believe we should be so quick to trust them, and should keep our guard up. I am disappointed that delays in congress interfered with the development of the budding relations. I hope that these relations continue to improve and we gain a new allie.
Aimee Plante - Environment no. 2
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/denise-bode/the-supreme-court-accepts_b_4123728.html
SUMMARY: Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court agreed to review whether the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has the power to require greenhouse gas permits from power plants, factories, and refineries. Obama's EPA greenhouse gas program had been upheld by the federal court last year, which addressed the issue of mobile pollution sources. To the court's surprise, however, Obama directed the EPA to issue a proposal for the reduction of CO2 emissions from new (hint: new) power plants. The EPA, through this proposal, has since taken their power a step further by attempting to regulate stationary pollution sources as well. This issue is set to be argued in 2014.
REACTION: I wan't aware that the EPA has been working toward this, but I am pleasantly surprised that they are. Cars are certainly not the only source of pollution in the world and we need to take steps to address all environmental issues if we are to get anywhere. It actually irritates me that a review over these actions are considered necessary as it is something we should be attempting to regulate anyway. I do, however, understand that these reviews are a part of the process in which manufacturers may keep maintain their global competitiveness, but I personally feel that the preservation of the environment is more dire than sales. Then again, I'm not an economist and different people have different values. I just think that our environmental equanimity is something we should value more.
CONNECTION: The Supreme Court review of the EPA's actions relates to the judicial branch's power to rule the actions of policymakers unconstitutional. Obama has been pushing for this issue through his Climate Action Plan, but the EPA may not have the authority to regulate stationary pollution sources under the Clean Air Act. If the Supreme Court determines that the EPA does not have the power to control these emissions under the Clean Air Act, the EPA will no longer be able to do so.
SUMMARY: Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court agreed to review whether the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has the power to require greenhouse gas permits from power plants, factories, and refineries. Obama's EPA greenhouse gas program had been upheld by the federal court last year, which addressed the issue of mobile pollution sources. To the court's surprise, however, Obama directed the EPA to issue a proposal for the reduction of CO2 emissions from new (hint: new) power plants. The EPA, through this proposal, has since taken their power a step further by attempting to regulate stationary pollution sources as well. This issue is set to be argued in 2014.
REACTION: I wan't aware that the EPA has been working toward this, but I am pleasantly surprised that they are. Cars are certainly not the only source of pollution in the world and we need to take steps to address all environmental issues if we are to get anywhere. It actually irritates me that a review over these actions are considered necessary as it is something we should be attempting to regulate anyway. I do, however, understand that these reviews are a part of the process in which manufacturers may keep maintain their global competitiveness, but I personally feel that the preservation of the environment is more dire than sales. Then again, I'm not an economist and different people have different values. I just think that our environmental equanimity is something we should value more.
CONNECTION: The Supreme Court review of the EPA's actions relates to the judicial branch's power to rule the actions of policymakers unconstitutional. Obama has been pushing for this issue through his Climate Action Plan, but the EPA may not have the authority to regulate stationary pollution sources under the Clean Air Act. If the Supreme Court determines that the EPA does not have the power to control these emissions under the Clean Air Act, the EPA will no longer be able to do so.
Bailey Schmidt National Security #2
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/28/not-acceptable-security-concerns-as-dhs-weighs-lifting-libya-restrictions/
Summary: A document lifting the long time ban on Libyans traveling to the U.S for training in aviation and "nuclear-related fields", has been circulating around the Department of Homeland Security. Some lawmakers consider this to be a red flag as problems with Libya haven't exactly been eradicated. The ban was first put on in 1983 as Muammar Qaddafi came to power, making tensions rise between Libya and the U.S. Libya has made the move to democratize the country and have showed interests in sending students to study aviation and nuclear related fields to help them rebuild the government. Republican lawmakers strongly suggest that the department back off.
Connection: This ban directly affects the U.S's national security because either decision the DHS makes will cause more tension between the U.S and Libya than there already is. By lifting this ban, Libyans are allowed to be trained by the Department of Defense to fly planes and work nuclear plants. If we allow the Libyans in, we could potentially be training terrorists to attack our own country, while if we don't let them in, tension will rise even more because it can be considered racist, and they might attack us anyway.
Reaction: I was actually somewhat shocked to read that a terrorist in connection with the 1998 Embassy bombings was just captured this month. While I can understand that tracking down a terrorist is no easy job, I'm still surprised to see that they just captured this guy after fifteen years. This article is somewhat biased by only using republican sources, but I have to say I agree with the idea that lifting the ban is a bad idea. Based on the problems we've had in Benghazi recently, allowing students from Libya to come and train with our Department of Defense in aviation and nuclear fields is not the brightest idea. Maybe the students showing interest in how a democracy works could study the history of the U.S like we as American students are required to learn, and take bits and pieces that they like to form a government. Just to be clear, I am not saying all Libyans are terrorists and these students might be peaceful and willing to work with the Department of Defense to learn, but at this point in time, with the tensions between the U.S and Libya being higher than ever, it would be wise to not allow these students to study here and the ban should not be lifted.
Summary: A document lifting the long time ban on Libyans traveling to the U.S for training in aviation and "nuclear-related fields", has been circulating around the Department of Homeland Security. Some lawmakers consider this to be a red flag as problems with Libya haven't exactly been eradicated. The ban was first put on in 1983 as Muammar Qaddafi came to power, making tensions rise between Libya and the U.S. Libya has made the move to democratize the country and have showed interests in sending students to study aviation and nuclear related fields to help them rebuild the government. Republican lawmakers strongly suggest that the department back off.
Connection: This ban directly affects the U.S's national security because either decision the DHS makes will cause more tension between the U.S and Libya than there already is. By lifting this ban, Libyans are allowed to be trained by the Department of Defense to fly planes and work nuclear plants. If we allow the Libyans in, we could potentially be training terrorists to attack our own country, while if we don't let them in, tension will rise even more because it can be considered racist, and they might attack us anyway.
Reaction: I was actually somewhat shocked to read that a terrorist in connection with the 1998 Embassy bombings was just captured this month. While I can understand that tracking down a terrorist is no easy job, I'm still surprised to see that they just captured this guy after fifteen years. This article is somewhat biased by only using republican sources, but I have to say I agree with the idea that lifting the ban is a bad idea. Based on the problems we've had in Benghazi recently, allowing students from Libya to come and train with our Department of Defense in aviation and nuclear fields is not the brightest idea. Maybe the students showing interest in how a democracy works could study the history of the U.S like we as American students are required to learn, and take bits and pieces that they like to form a government. Just to be clear, I am not saying all Libyans are terrorists and these students might be peaceful and willing to work with the Department of Defense to learn, but at this point in time, with the tensions between the U.S and Libya being higher than ever, it would be wise to not allow these students to study here and the ban should not be lifted.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Alexis Tansey - National Security #2
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/10/25/iran-bomb-uranium-israel/3186567/
Summary: Iran is getting closer and closer to producing a high-tech uranium nuclear bomb. If they succeed in doing this, the rest of the world will be put in huge danger. Israel's deputy defense minister said that they will not stand by and watch. If necessary, military action will be taken. The improvements to the nuclear bomb could make detection extremely difficult. It could possibly take as little as a month for the uranium to be converted into weapons-grade uranium, according to David Albright, president of the Institute of Science and International Security and a former inspector of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency. On Thursday, the White House and Senate staffers met to discuss strategy for negotiations with Iran. Bernadette Meehan, a spokesperson from the administration's National Security Council said that the U.S. will continue to monitor the Iranian nuclear program closely. Senator Mark Kirk said, "the Senate should move forward immediately with a new round of sanctions to prevent Iran from acquiring an undetectable breakout capability." According to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Iran has no interest in producing nuclear weapons but it is their right to produce nuclear fuel if they want to. Iran has blocked international inspectors from some suspected nuclear facilities so it is impossible to tell if they are complying with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty they signed. Evidence of a weapons program in violation of this Treaty has been found by United Nations inspectors. Economic sanctions have been placed on Iran by the U.S. and the UN Security Council to verify they are not developing a bomb.
Reaction: This is a very scary topic. I really hope that Iran is not creating nuclear weapons because that would put the rest of the world in danger. I agree with Senator Mark Kirk, a new round of sanctions need to be placed because the House has already done all that they can with tightening the sanctions. I definitely think that military action needs to be taken before a nuclear attack occurs.
Connection: This can be connected to the different political ideologies we are learning about and the test we took for chapter 6. The question is: does the military intervene to stop the production of Iran's improved nuclear bomb. It is a more conservative standpoint to want to get the military involved, which was Israel's plan. Obama, on the other end, is more reluctant to get the military involved. No one has done anything yet because even the Conservatives hope military action will not be necessary, but they are prepared if need be.
Summary: Iran is getting closer and closer to producing a high-tech uranium nuclear bomb. If they succeed in doing this, the rest of the world will be put in huge danger. Israel's deputy defense minister said that they will not stand by and watch. If necessary, military action will be taken. The improvements to the nuclear bomb could make detection extremely difficult. It could possibly take as little as a month for the uranium to be converted into weapons-grade uranium, according to David Albright, president of the Institute of Science and International Security and a former inspector of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency. On Thursday, the White House and Senate staffers met to discuss strategy for negotiations with Iran. Bernadette Meehan, a spokesperson from the administration's National Security Council said that the U.S. will continue to monitor the Iranian nuclear program closely. Senator Mark Kirk said, "the Senate should move forward immediately with a new round of sanctions to prevent Iran from acquiring an undetectable breakout capability." According to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Iran has no interest in producing nuclear weapons but it is their right to produce nuclear fuel if they want to. Iran has blocked international inspectors from some suspected nuclear facilities so it is impossible to tell if they are complying with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty they signed. Evidence of a weapons program in violation of this Treaty has been found by United Nations inspectors. Economic sanctions have been placed on Iran by the U.S. and the UN Security Council to verify they are not developing a bomb.
Reaction: This is a very scary topic. I really hope that Iran is not creating nuclear weapons because that would put the rest of the world in danger. I agree with Senator Mark Kirk, a new round of sanctions need to be placed because the House has already done all that they can with tightening the sanctions. I definitely think that military action needs to be taken before a nuclear attack occurs.
Connection: This can be connected to the different political ideologies we are learning about and the test we took for chapter 6. The question is: does the military intervene to stop the production of Iran's improved nuclear bomb. It is a more conservative standpoint to want to get the military involved, which was Israel's plan. Obama, on the other end, is more reluctant to get the military involved. No one has done anything yet because even the Conservatives hope military action will not be necessary, but they are prepared if need be.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Josh Kinyon- Social Welfare Post 2
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/us/medicaid-expansion-is-set-for-ohioans.html
SUMMARY: This article talks about Medicaid Expansion in Ohio. John Kasich, the Republican Governor of Ohio, helped to push through a large expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. On a 5-2 vote, the Controlling Board accepted $2.5 billion in Medicaid funds from the national government. There has been a lot of criticism as to whether the vote was actually legal. Some of this criticism is coming from Republican State legislators. Kasich has argued that expanding Medicaid will help the economy of Ohio by bringing in companies to Ohio. States today can opt out of the Medicaid expansion because of the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act in 2012. Now, 25 states have voted to expand Medicaid since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, and there are many efforts in other states to expand Medicaid eligibility. Some groups plan to sue over the decision made by the Controlling Board, making allegations of corruption in the board. These groups were mostly conservative groups who oppose the Affordable Care Act and the expansion of Medicaid.
REACTION: I agree that Ohio should expand Medicaid. I think that it would bring businesses into Ohio. If Ohio has a healthier workforce, it would be more competitive. While the expansion will cost federal money, it will not cost a great deal of money. While I disagree with certain parts of the Affordable Care Act, including the individual mandate and the business mandate, I believe that the provision to expand state Medicaid programs is a good provision. I am surprised in how the expansion got through. Instead of legislative action to accept federal money to expand Medicaid, the Controlling Board, with the support of John Kasich, had to step in. I am surprised that some groups are suing over the Controlling Board’s decision to accept federal dollars to expand Medicaid in Ohio. I would think that having their state receive federal dollars would be a good thing. Overall, I think that the expansion of state Medicaid eligibility is generally good, and I am happy to see that Ohio has expanded its Medicaid program.
CONNECTION: This connects to what we are learning in class in terms of checks and balances and fiscal federalism. The Supreme Court in 2012 made a decision on the Affordable Care Act. It determined that the individual mandate provision was constitutional. However, it allowed states to not expand their Medicaid programs. This has led to difficulty in expanding Medicaid in more conservative states that opposed the Affordable Care Act to begin with. Congress passed the Affordable Care, and President Obama signed it into law. By making a ruling on the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court checked the power of the other branches. Also, the Medicaid programs run by states receive federal dollars. Medicaid money given to states is a categorical grant. States receive federal dollars to help run their programs through these grants. In return, what these states spend that money on is restricted to Medicaid programs. States, however, still have a great deal of control in administering their Medicaid programs. Overall, this article connects to checks and balances and fiscal federalism, so it is very applicable to what we are learning.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/us/medicaid-expansion-is-set-for-ohioans.html
SUMMARY: This article talks about Medicaid Expansion in Ohio. John Kasich, the Republican Governor of Ohio, helped to push through a large expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. On a 5-2 vote, the Controlling Board accepted $2.5 billion in Medicaid funds from the national government. There has been a lot of criticism as to whether the vote was actually legal. Some of this criticism is coming from Republican State legislators. Kasich has argued that expanding Medicaid will help the economy of Ohio by bringing in companies to Ohio. States today can opt out of the Medicaid expansion because of the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act in 2012. Now, 25 states have voted to expand Medicaid since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, and there are many efforts in other states to expand Medicaid eligibility. Some groups plan to sue over the decision made by the Controlling Board, making allegations of corruption in the board. These groups were mostly conservative groups who oppose the Affordable Care Act and the expansion of Medicaid.
REACTION: I agree that Ohio should expand Medicaid. I think that it would bring businesses into Ohio. If Ohio has a healthier workforce, it would be more competitive. While the expansion will cost federal money, it will not cost a great deal of money. While I disagree with certain parts of the Affordable Care Act, including the individual mandate and the business mandate, I believe that the provision to expand state Medicaid programs is a good provision. I am surprised in how the expansion got through. Instead of legislative action to accept federal money to expand Medicaid, the Controlling Board, with the support of John Kasich, had to step in. I am surprised that some groups are suing over the Controlling Board’s decision to accept federal dollars to expand Medicaid in Ohio. I would think that having their state receive federal dollars would be a good thing. Overall, I think that the expansion of state Medicaid eligibility is generally good, and I am happy to see that Ohio has expanded its Medicaid program.
CONNECTION: This connects to what we are learning in class in terms of checks and balances and fiscal federalism. The Supreme Court in 2012 made a decision on the Affordable Care Act. It determined that the individual mandate provision was constitutional. However, it allowed states to not expand their Medicaid programs. This has led to difficulty in expanding Medicaid in more conservative states that opposed the Affordable Care Act to begin with. Congress passed the Affordable Care, and President Obama signed it into law. By making a ruling on the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court checked the power of the other branches. Also, the Medicaid programs run by states receive federal dollars. Medicaid money given to states is a categorical grant. States receive federal dollars to help run their programs through these grants. In return, what these states spend that money on is restricted to Medicaid programs. States, however, still have a great deal of control in administering their Medicaid programs. Overall, this article connects to checks and balances and fiscal federalism, so it is very applicable to what we are learning.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Alexander Flax - Economics
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/23/business/economy/us-economy-added-148000-jobs-in-september.html#http://json8.nytimes.com/pages/business/economy/index.jsonp
Summary: Unemployment is declining at a rate that is less than desirable. As a result, economists expect the stimulus programs, put in place to assist people, to maintain the current funding, much to their dismay. They expect tapering of the stimulus programs to begin around March 2014. Economists are assuming tapering will begin soon because there has been no significant change in the unemployment rate since the stimulus programs have been introduced. Also, the period of government shutdown would further skew unemployment numbers and it pushes back the first "clean" job report to January 2014. That will be the first one that is not affected by the federal government closing and then again reopening.
Reaction: I am very surprised to find out that these stimulus packages are still in place even with little improvement in the general economy and the unemployment rate specifically. One would assume that after several months of clear data that efforts would be lessened to aid, with so little improvement. I personally would taper stimulus packages if I saw that they had very minimal effects on what they intended to change.
Connection: In the Madisonian model, Madison talks about separating powers and instituting a system of checks and balances to essentially make sure that the three branches of government keep each other in check and no one branch becomes too powerful. Separation like this can lead to many disagreements and unfavorable situations that may take longer than necessary to resolve. For example, the recent government shutdown had many effects on the U.S. economy, and this was all due to disputes among the three branches and the political parties represented within each.
Summary: Unemployment is declining at a rate that is less than desirable. As a result, economists expect the stimulus programs, put in place to assist people, to maintain the current funding, much to their dismay. They expect tapering of the stimulus programs to begin around March 2014. Economists are assuming tapering will begin soon because there has been no significant change in the unemployment rate since the stimulus programs have been introduced. Also, the period of government shutdown would further skew unemployment numbers and it pushes back the first "clean" job report to January 2014. That will be the first one that is not affected by the federal government closing and then again reopening.
Reaction: I am very surprised to find out that these stimulus packages are still in place even with little improvement in the general economy and the unemployment rate specifically. One would assume that after several months of clear data that efforts would be lessened to aid, with so little improvement. I personally would taper stimulus packages if I saw that they had very minimal effects on what they intended to change.
Connection: In the Madisonian model, Madison talks about separating powers and instituting a system of checks and balances to essentially make sure that the three branches of government keep each other in check and no one branch becomes too powerful. Separation like this can lead to many disagreements and unfavorable situations that may take longer than necessary to resolve. For example, the recent government shutdown had many effects on the U.S. economy, and this was all due to disputes among the three branches and the political parties represented within each.
Economics 1, Katherine Baer
Economic Article: Everything you need to know about JPMorgan’s $13 billion settlement
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/21/everything-you-need-to-know-about-jpmorgans-13-billion-settlement/
This article provided an overview of the JPMorgan $13 billion settlement. JPMorgan Chase is one of the largest banks in the US. It is used for consumer needs like making deposits and is involved in Wall Street stocks/bonds. In 2000 JPMorgan combined with Chase Manhattan, another financial firm, causing the overall firm to be named JPMorgan Chase. JP Morgan Chase is being accused of selling bad loans to investors which led to the financial crisis in 2008. People did not pay their loans, and this caused investors that bought JPMorgan Chase’s loans to lose money. A ripple effect began. Investors all over the nation started to lose money, causing the US to plummet financially. JPMorgan Chase is accused of improper procedures in the workplace. They did not check to see if the loans they sold were in fact able to be paid off, which was the root of the financial crisis in 2008. In fact, workers were told to process as many loans as possible in a short amount of time. This allotted for an offloading of bad loans to US investors and taxpayers. As of right now, JP Morgan agrees to cooperate with investigation. This has been a long process of investigation, which is why the issues with the firm are arising now. The money from the civil settlement will go to taxpayers and homeowners struggling with mortgages. The company accepts responsibility and plans to hire more employees and increase technology to prevent future legal issues.
I was pretty surprised that such a large financial firm with so many investors made poor choices like selling bad loans. With the amount of people working at the firm, I would think someone would check the loans thoroughly and notice a problem. I am a firm believer that quality overrides quantity. In this case, JPMorgan didn’t have that same mentality. The loans were processed without being checked, and created a big problem that resulted in a lot of people being affected. I would think that working for a company with such an impact on other individuals, someone would speak up and realize what was going on. I was glad to hear that the company is accepting responsibility for the wrongdoings rather than overlooking it. I believe the civil settlement is the right way to go about teaching this financial firms, and other firms alike that shortcutting work will not create a good outcome.
In this situation, the actions and decisions of one company had a great affect on a lot of people in the country. This can be related to AP Government, because the US government also has the capability of affecting the citizens of our nation by their decisions and actions. Smaller scale financial firms can be compared to state or local governments. The decisions made by local and state governments have effect fewer people, similar to small financial firms. The federal government and large financial firms like JPMorgan Chase effect a larger number of Americans. Both the government and financial firms, no matter what scale they are have the ability to affect the lives of Americans, which is important to remember when making decisions.
Brandon Huecksteadt: Social Welfare
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Block 4, Social Welfare
Summary: Republicans in the House of Representatives passed a bill that cuts down food stamp program greatly, despite the president's veto and opposing democrats. The vote ended up being 217 to 210 in favor of passing the bill. Republicans stated that it was time to measure their success based on their results, and the number in poverty has not changed even with the food stamp program. Democrats argued that the passing of this bill will plunge millions of people in poverty due to the fact that many people and families lived on these stamps. The bill would cut $40 billion from the program and would require many adults to take work-training courses to receive the food-stamp program's benefits. The bill also no longer makes those in other social welfare programs eligible for food stamps. Around 4 million people will be removed from the food stamp program due to this bill. It is estimated that over the next 10 years, without this bill, that 30% of people on food stamps would be off of it as the economy grows, making this bill "unnecessary", democrats argued. Before this bill, another one in July was declined that would have cut the program by $20 billion, but it was not a big enough cut for republicans.
Reaction: I find this bill disgusting on so many levels. I can understand congress is trying to find ways to cut their spending, but pulling it straight out of the things that people live off of is unacceptable to me. This not only limits who can get food stamps, but how often and the amount they can get. People live off of the food stamps and need them to survive. By taking this opportunity away from millions of Americans, they have killed many people and families even if they are only trying to help. If the main reason they are doing this is to cut government spending, they should have found something else to cut. They spend so much money on different programs, i'm sure they could have found something else to replace cutting food stamps. This affects children especially who's families can't always afford a decent amount of food to supply their family, and it's not fair to the kids that their government is in debt. This bill in general, is a bad idea and will hurt millions of people.
Connection: In Bettendorf alone, I have seen many homeless people on the streets begging for food and/or money. It's really sad that people have to live that way, without a job, money, food, or a home. I've helped in homeless shelters before and it can really break your heart seeing so many people need help. As I was reading this article, I thought of those people and the fact that they may not even be getting food stamps is just terrible. Those that do get food stamps have families that depend on them. Imagine with this bill, those people dying because they can't eat. Or the fact that they may have to resort to even more drastic measures like stealing and robbing to get by. Those born into poverty can usually get stuck in poverty throughout their lives, so it's better in my opinion that we try to stop poverty by whatever means necessary instead of giving up on those who need help.
Block 4, Social Welfare
House Republicans Pass Deep Cuts in Food Stamps
by: Brandon Huecksteadt
Reaction: I find this bill disgusting on so many levels. I can understand congress is trying to find ways to cut their spending, but pulling it straight out of the things that people live off of is unacceptable to me. This not only limits who can get food stamps, but how often and the amount they can get. People live off of the food stamps and need them to survive. By taking this opportunity away from millions of Americans, they have killed many people and families even if they are only trying to help. If the main reason they are doing this is to cut government spending, they should have found something else to cut. They spend so much money on different programs, i'm sure they could have found something else to replace cutting food stamps. This affects children especially who's families can't always afford a decent amount of food to supply their family, and it's not fair to the kids that their government is in debt. This bill in general, is a bad idea and will hurt millions of people.
Connection: In Bettendorf alone, I have seen many homeless people on the streets begging for food and/or money. It's really sad that people have to live that way, without a job, money, food, or a home. I've helped in homeless shelters before and it can really break your heart seeing so many people need help. As I was reading this article, I thought of those people and the fact that they may not even be getting food stamps is just terrible. Those that do get food stamps have families that depend on them. Imagine with this bill, those people dying because they can't eat. Or the fact that they may have to resort to even more drastic measures like stealing and robbing to get by. Those born into poverty can usually get stuck in poverty throughout their lives, so it's better in my opinion that we try to stop poverty by whatever means necessary instead of giving up on those who need help.
Josh Malik, Social Welfare
Welfare Aid Isn't Growing as Economy Drops Off
Summary: Recently, our country has been facing some of the worst economical crisis's that is has in years. Yet the number of people receiving cash assistance is that worst that it has been in over 40 years. Some of the states that have had the largest increase in unemployment have also had the largest decrease in welfare rolls or financial aid. This is for a number of reasons. One big reason would be that each state has already been given a fixed amount by the government for cash assistance to their citizens. While the increase in food stamps is paid for by the government, the individual states are left to pay the difference in the increase of welfare rolls, and some states just do not have the funds to do so. Also, it is the theory of some state officials that cash assistance should be reduced or completely cut off to those who aren't attempting to find work or attending job placement programs. The basis of social welfare is that while the government is assisting those in need, the individual must also be preparing for self-sufficiency.
Reaction: I do agree that states should be holding back cash assistance from those who are not trying to find work. Social welfare was designed on the basis to support those in need while helping them get back onto there feet financially. As for states being able to supply the difference in cash assistance, they have been given plenty of money by the federal government for welfare. Also, when the social welfare was first being put into place, states said that they knew what was best for their state and that they were not going to let people starve.
Connection: This topic directly relates to Federalism and how the different layers of government, central and state, are responsible for their own issues, but can still be assisted by one another. Also, the government is supposed to provide for it's people, which is what the entire social welfare is based off. It also relates with federalism in such that because of both the central government and the state government being exposed to issues(points of access), there is more being done about these situations leaving more people satisfied.
National Security: Spying on the French
National Security
By: Fredy Stroker
By: Fredy Stroker
Report that NSA collected French phone
records causing diplomatic headache for U.S.
Summary: Monday report showed that the National Security Agency had collected 70 million French phone records in the past month. The President has started a White House Review of intelligence-gathering practices after foreign and domestic criticism of U.S. surveillance operations. This situation could cause changes to the limits and usage of electronic espionage by the NSA. The Administration is constantly reminding the public of the benefits of intelligence. The Obama administration is also playing the "other countries do it too" card. The NSA’s targets looked to be people with suspected links to terrorism, but also involved French business and political figures.
Reaction: This article was quite a surprise to me. I never knew that a country could spy on another country like so. I only thought that it could only spy on itself. This was quite a shock to find and it makes me wonder if any other countries are spying on the US like the US is spying on France. It also makes me wonder what other countries the US could possibly be spying on. Although this seems harmful, to spy on other countries, but it seems like the US didn't have harmful intentions. Although they were supposedly looking for business and political figures, they had public safety in mind
Connection: This connects to our current AP American Government. In class, we've talked about the different branches of government and how much power and what powers they hold. Congress passed the patriot act after 9/11 to help put a stop to terrorism by letting the government tap phone calls and computers of suspected terrorists. This is a power the government has over the people of America. Now, spying on France and the French, that's a different story.
Reaction: This article was quite a surprise to me. I never knew that a country could spy on another country like so. I only thought that it could only spy on itself. This was quite a shock to find and it makes me wonder if any other countries are spying on the US like the US is spying on France. It also makes me wonder what other countries the US could possibly be spying on. Although this seems harmful, to spy on other countries, but it seems like the US didn't have harmful intentions. Although they were supposedly looking for business and political figures, they had public safety in mind
Connection: This connects to our current AP American Government. In class, we've talked about the different branches of government and how much power and what powers they hold. Congress passed the patriot act after 9/11 to help put a stop to terrorism by letting the government tap phone calls and computers of suspected terrorists. This is a power the government has over the people of America. Now, spying on France and the French, that's a different story.
Libby Weaver- National Security
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-collects-millions-of-e-mail-address-books-globally/2013/10/14/8e58b5be-34f9-11e3-80c6-7e6dd8d22d8f_story.html
Summary: Last week in a press conference Obama informed the country that the NSA is harvesting the peoples emails, email address books, and even instant messages. During a single day, the NSA branch collected 444,743 e-mail address books from Yahoo, 105,068 from Hotmail, 82,857 from Facebook, 33,697 from Gmail and 22,881 from other providers that were not specified. In a year this adds to over 250 million per year globally. The article in the Washington Post explains that not only names and email addresses are in the address book, but can also include telephone numbers, street adresses, and important family and business information. Also, the email address books that are stored in the 'cloud' can contain message content. A spokesperson for the NSA then went on to explain how the agency “is focused on discovering and developing intelligence about valid foreign intelligence targets like terrorists, human traffickers and drug smugglers. We are not interested in personal information about ordinary Americans.”
Reaction: I was honestly surprised to know this. People say that the government is always watching, but it creeps me out that they can look through every day american's emails. I get how it's for the good of our country, searching for possible threats, but I don't think terrorists will be emailing their terrorist plans to other terrorists via email. Maybe that's just me. I don't really know their thinking process, nor do I want to. Also, wouldn't the government receive minimal information about the 'comrades' if they are in the address book? What good is it to have a terrorists email address? It just seems like a faulty plan to me.
Connection: This directly relates to the rights that we have as citizens of the United States. I believe this goes against the fourth amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches without a warrant supported by probable cause. I do not believe that every person in the world has a probable cause for national threat. Surely I don't want to stereotype a terrorist, but the information the government is receiving, over 250 million email address books, is not necessary.
Summary: Last week in a press conference Obama informed the country that the NSA is harvesting the peoples emails, email address books, and even instant messages. During a single day, the NSA branch collected 444,743 e-mail address books from Yahoo, 105,068 from Hotmail, 82,857 from Facebook, 33,697 from Gmail and 22,881 from other providers that were not specified. In a year this adds to over 250 million per year globally. The article in the Washington Post explains that not only names and email addresses are in the address book, but can also include telephone numbers, street adresses, and important family and business information. Also, the email address books that are stored in the 'cloud' can contain message content. A spokesperson for the NSA then went on to explain how the agency “is focused on discovering and developing intelligence about valid foreign intelligence targets like terrorists, human traffickers and drug smugglers. We are not interested in personal information about ordinary Americans.”
Reaction: I was honestly surprised to know this. People say that the government is always watching, but it creeps me out that they can look through every day american's emails. I get how it's for the good of our country, searching for possible threats, but I don't think terrorists will be emailing their terrorist plans to other terrorists via email. Maybe that's just me. I don't really know their thinking process, nor do I want to. Also, wouldn't the government receive minimal information about the 'comrades' if they are in the address book? What good is it to have a terrorists email address? It just seems like a faulty plan to me.
Connection: This directly relates to the rights that we have as citizens of the United States. I believe this goes against the fourth amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches without a warrant supported by probable cause. I do not believe that every person in the world has a probable cause for national threat. Surely I don't want to stereotype a terrorist, but the information the government is receiving, over 250 million email address books, is not necessary.
The Chuck Klutho I, Social Welfare
Summary- Since 2009, in 35 states, one is better off not working at all and taking advantage of federal welfare programs then going out and getting a minimum wage job, which pays less than welfare in most cases. On top of this in 13 of those 35 states welfare pays more than $15 an hour todo nothing. This simply attracts some people to unemployment. Welfare can either help someone who is low on luck and simply can't find a job or afford a place to live and food. However, welfare can also be a reward for those unemployed who have championed the federal government and taken advantage of its welfare and do nothing to receive benefits such as money. This is no new story either, in 1984 a book was published, within the book it said that even though the U.S. was spending trillions of dollars on anti-poverty programs, that poverty, in fact, was not improving but in some measures worsening. Although in 1996 a law was signed into effect to cut back on welfare for people who did not need it, those are now virtually overshadowed by other programs that have grown much bigger in the past 17 years. In fact in a 2013 study conducted by Cato saw that 32 states and Washington D.C. saw increases in how much their welfare paid people per hour. Of these Hawaii has the highest offering $60,590 in benefits which equates to $29.13 per hour. However some states did decrease, in fact, Alaska lowered its welfare by $22,255 from last year which is the largest drop in the nation. One solution to the welfare woes of America that has been purposes is to make the welfare a taxable income, such as is done in Sweden. In Sweden through this more than 85% of working age native swedes work which is more than 15% higher than that of the rest of Europe.
Reaction- My reaction to reading this article is shocked basically, I had no clue as to how much welfare recipients received. Also to think that some people work multiple jobs just to get by and support their family and some of these people just skate on through without having to do anything to prove themselves. At some point in a persons life they will have to stop being a page and start making a book for themselves.
Connection- Welfare has become an issue in our world today, and through one plan, that based on Sweden's, we could mend some of the issues. This could be done by improving our federalist government by treating the welfare as an income tax the money can go back to the federal and state governments and helps them to fix their own problems. This also influences those relying on welfare to find their own works that can hopefully make more and get them off welfare, as was done in Sweden.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/the apothecary/2013/09/02/on-labor-day-2013-welfare-pays-more-than-minimum-wage-in-35-states/
Matt Ernster - Economics
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/23/business/economy/us-economy-added-148000-jobs-in-september.html?pagewanted=1&ref=economy
Summary: Recent labor statistics have been surprisingly poor for September. Many economists had predicted a growth over this quarter, but its just the opposite. Although the unemployment rate has dropped from 7.3% to 7.2%, it was not dramatic enough to be noted. The jobs added in September was 142,000, down from the previous 182,000. The government had the least amount of civilians on its payroll since 1966. On top of the weak job statistics, employees who could not work during the government shutdown, are having suspicions. A man who worked at a McDonalds in the Smithsonian was not able to work because it was shut down. He was told he would receive compensation for assigned hours but has yet to be payed, and his hours seem to have disappeared from the schedule he previously worked. Even worse though, are all of the private workers will not be compensated, further weakening the economy and job statistics. Though job statistics were predicted to rise, the have surprisingly fallen and its stirring up worries.
Reaction: I think that it is surprising how much emphasis the government puts on the economy's healing, but continues to raise the debt ceiling and turn out poor job statistics. I also think its a problem when very in tune people and economists all predict that the job market will do well, but it does not. It seems to me like the government needs to create new and much more effective policies in order to speed up the restoration of Americas economy. The only way to get something done, it seems, is to continue to come up with new ways to raise our debt ceiling, rather than fix the debt problem in the first place. Continuing to weaken the economy and job market is not what needs to be done.
Connection: This connects to our class and curriculum because the economy is a huge deal to the government we learn about. Any large economic breakthroughs or fall outs the government controls will be learned about in future classes about our government. If a certain policy is created that benefits the economy, it will most likely be widely talked about and taught in classes.
Summary: Recent labor statistics have been surprisingly poor for September. Many economists had predicted a growth over this quarter, but its just the opposite. Although the unemployment rate has dropped from 7.3% to 7.2%, it was not dramatic enough to be noted. The jobs added in September was 142,000, down from the previous 182,000. The government had the least amount of civilians on its payroll since 1966. On top of the weak job statistics, employees who could not work during the government shutdown, are having suspicions. A man who worked at a McDonalds in the Smithsonian was not able to work because it was shut down. He was told he would receive compensation for assigned hours but has yet to be payed, and his hours seem to have disappeared from the schedule he previously worked. Even worse though, are all of the private workers will not be compensated, further weakening the economy and job statistics. Though job statistics were predicted to rise, the have surprisingly fallen and its stirring up worries.
Reaction: I think that it is surprising how much emphasis the government puts on the economy's healing, but continues to raise the debt ceiling and turn out poor job statistics. I also think its a problem when very in tune people and economists all predict that the job market will do well, but it does not. It seems to me like the government needs to create new and much more effective policies in order to speed up the restoration of Americas economy. The only way to get something done, it seems, is to continue to come up with new ways to raise our debt ceiling, rather than fix the debt problem in the first place. Continuing to weaken the economy and job market is not what needs to be done.
Connection: This connects to our class and curriculum because the economy is a huge deal to the government we learn about. Any large economic breakthroughs or fall outs the government controls will be learned about in future classes about our government. If a certain policy is created that benefits the economy, it will most likely be widely talked about and taught in classes.
Zach Mouw- Social welfare and minimum wage
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/02/on-labor-day-2013-welfare-pays-more-than-minimum-wage-work-in-35-states/
Summary:
In 35 states, people in the welfare system are receiving more money than a worker getting paid minimum wage makes. This stat, because it is basically saying it would be better to just not work, supports the argument that welfare has become a reason to avoid looking for a job rather than a support system for genuinely unlucky people. The amount paid in welfare is usually significantly higher than 7.25$ per hour, with thirteen states giving over 15$ per hour in welfare. The seemingly excessive amount of welfare being distributed has also lead to the conclusion that Bill Clinton's welfare reform in 1996, which tried to make welfare an emergency program instead of a long term plan, was a failure. The welfare system has also grown in size and is supporting more people since 1996. One proposed idea to make our country's welfare less costly is the "Swedish Program". This is a system in which welfare is treated like any other taxable income. Therefore, a percentage of government money spent on welfare is pumped directly back into the government and the welfare community will feel more liable to support it's government. The facts in this article were gathered by Michael Tanner and Charles Hughes of the Cato Institute.
Reaction:
Although I do agree that welfare is far too high in most states, I would also think that just because someone is working a minimum wage job doesn't mean that they are not on the fringe of poverty. It may be completely necessary for welfare beneficiaries to receive more than minimum wage depending on their situation. I would also be in total support of testing Sweden's welfare policy, because there is no reason why it would fail in getting people off of welfare. The Swedish program could also drop our national debt very significantly, as welfare could become a smaller part of our budget.
Connection:
The proposed Swedish policy of welfare could be an advantage of federalism in our government. Treating welfare like an income tax would just be another method of the central government funding state governments because some of the federal government's welfare money would end up in the budgets of state governments in the form of a state income tax.
Summary:
In 35 states, people in the welfare system are receiving more money than a worker getting paid minimum wage makes. This stat, because it is basically saying it would be better to just not work, supports the argument that welfare has become a reason to avoid looking for a job rather than a support system for genuinely unlucky people. The amount paid in welfare is usually significantly higher than 7.25$ per hour, with thirteen states giving over 15$ per hour in welfare. The seemingly excessive amount of welfare being distributed has also lead to the conclusion that Bill Clinton's welfare reform in 1996, which tried to make welfare an emergency program instead of a long term plan, was a failure. The welfare system has also grown in size and is supporting more people since 1996. One proposed idea to make our country's welfare less costly is the "Swedish Program". This is a system in which welfare is treated like any other taxable income. Therefore, a percentage of government money spent on welfare is pumped directly back into the government and the welfare community will feel more liable to support it's government. The facts in this article were gathered by Michael Tanner and Charles Hughes of the Cato Institute.
Reaction:
Although I do agree that welfare is far too high in most states, I would also think that just because someone is working a minimum wage job doesn't mean that they are not on the fringe of poverty. It may be completely necessary for welfare beneficiaries to receive more than minimum wage depending on their situation. I would also be in total support of testing Sweden's welfare policy, because there is no reason why it would fail in getting people off of welfare. The Swedish program could also drop our national debt very significantly, as welfare could become a smaller part of our budget.
Connection:
The proposed Swedish policy of welfare could be an advantage of federalism in our government. Treating welfare like an income tax would just be another method of the central government funding state governments because some of the federal government's welfare money would end up in the budgets of state governments in the form of a state income tax.
Ryan Kline - Social Welfare
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/business/treasury-warns-of-potential-default-by-mid-october.html
Summary:
Congress received a deadline from the treasury. By October 17, congress had needed to either raise the debt ceiling or default. Had congress not raised the debt ceiling, it would have had to default, leaving it only $30 billion in spending money. The treasury warned congress that it had hit its debt limit, meaning that it couldn't create new debt to pay bills. Congress responded by raising the debt ceiling and issuing the treasury to begin paying off its debts to bondholders. If congress fails to raise the debt ceiling once it is reached again, the treasury will fail to meet 30% of its payment obligations which include; $37 billion in social security payments, $18 billion in Medicare payments, and $6 billion in public debt. If these payments cant be made, then many of the programs they support will suffer severe cuts.
Reaction:
Unfortunately the debt ceiling and its effects on social welfare programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, has been chronically avoided as a topic in American politics. It put congress in between the proverbial rock and a hard place; not raising the ceiling will leave many Americans without "essential" programs they have come to rely on, but if it is raised these problems will only be put off for a small while longer. No proposed solution is very desirable, and I believe that all parties are cautious to make the first step in carrying out any actions which may cut funding to such widely used (read as; Used by everyone) programs as Social Security or Medicare, as doing such would carry severe political backlash. Whatever the solution, it needs to be agreed upon and accomplished as soon as possible, as putting off the issue will surely result in a forced drastic decline in funding of essential programs, which with so many people reliant on such programs, would be catastrophic.
Connection:
This issue directly relates to the scope of government. Because of the expansion of government into areas such as retirement and healthcare, it now has to deal with all the headaches that come from running such a sector. Because the government has extended to such a point, it may have stretched itself to thin, which relates to the balance of power between state and the central governments in federalism. The central government tried to assume to much responsibility, and now has to find some way to rectify its problem as a result.
Aaron Lawrence Soc. Welfare
http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-Top-Stories-c-2013-10-21-85525.113122-Prisoners
-still-receiving-social-welfare-benefits-audit-finds.html
Summary: in five counties located in the state of New York, inmates in jail have recieved over
$236,000 in social welfare programs. Auditors found that over 200 inmates have been receiving
Medicaid and unemployment insurance while they were incarcerated. Auditors say that the Social
Welfare programs are designed for poor or unemployed people to help them out temporarily till
they can get back on their feet. These programs are not intended for people who have committed
a crime and are in prison. A county's Department of Social Services (DSS) is supposed to keep
track of the eligibility of individuals. The jail sends the DSS a list of names to see who loses
eligibility of welfare benefits. The reason why inmates still received these benefits is because the
list of names was not handled correctly or matched in a timely manner. But one of these county's
DSS did receive the list on time, but still failed to end the person who was in prison's eligibility.
Further investigation by the audits revealed that cutting off the welfare benefits of the inmates
happened only after 130 days since they have been in jail. The Department of Labor was
investigated and auditors learned that inmates would still receive cash
payments for the next 30 days until the DOL becomes aware. Auditors say that state agencies
and local agencies need to work together so eligible people receive payments, and incarcerated
people do not.
Reaction: If I were a tax payer in New York, I would be a little ticked off. Because the fact that
my taxes that go to social welfare, just went to a guy in prison. As it is, I am already paying for
them to be alive and well in prison. I believe it is reasonable to pay for welfare with taxes, but
when that person is in prison, I don't believe that my taxes should be used to help benefit him or
her.
Connection: I believe that this connects to our government because taxes are what funds many public
services that we use today. Also the government is supposed to provide for people who are in need, so they
pay for social welfare. This also relates because congress is fighting over whether to fund social welfare
benefits or not to fund them.
-still-receiving-social-welfare-benefits-audit-finds.html
Summary: in five counties located in the state of New York, inmates in jail have recieved over
$236,000 in social welfare programs. Auditors found that over 200 inmates have been receiving
Medicaid and unemployment insurance while they were incarcerated. Auditors say that the Social
Welfare programs are designed for poor or unemployed people to help them out temporarily till
they can get back on their feet. These programs are not intended for people who have committed
a crime and are in prison. A county's Department of Social Services (DSS) is supposed to keep
track of the eligibility of individuals. The jail sends the DSS a list of names to see who loses
eligibility of welfare benefits. The reason why inmates still received these benefits is because the
list of names was not handled correctly or matched in a timely manner. But one of these county's
DSS did receive the list on time, but still failed to end the person who was in prison's eligibility.
Further investigation by the audits revealed that cutting off the welfare benefits of the inmates
happened only after 130 days since they have been in jail. The Department of Labor was
investigated and auditors learned that inmates would still receive cash
payments for the next 30 days until the DOL becomes aware. Auditors say that state agencies
and local agencies need to work together so eligible people receive payments, and incarcerated
people do not.
Reaction: If I were a tax payer in New York, I would be a little ticked off. Because the fact that
my taxes that go to social welfare, just went to a guy in prison. As it is, I am already paying for
them to be alive and well in prison. I believe it is reasonable to pay for welfare with taxes, but
when that person is in prison, I don't believe that my taxes should be used to help benefit him or
her.
Connection: I believe that this connects to our government because taxes are what funds many public
services that we use today. Also the government is supposed to provide for people who are in need, so they
pay for social welfare. This also relates because congress is fighting over whether to fund social welfare
benefits or not to fund them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)