National Security Post

The unique situation of this issue causes citizens to think about a bigger issue: how much power should one human being hold in making decisions for the voice of millions? The President has the resources and knowledge to make wise choices considering the well being of a country but I don't think the Constitution allots one person that much power. I agree with Obama's current decision to use force against a group that is killing innocent people and religious minorities. I agree with this decision because it reminds me of the circumstance of the Nazi Holocaust where the US intervened and saved thousands of lives. The writer emphasizes the president should have power over the situation because, "The Islamic State group, which was founded in 2004, has not been linked to the 9/11 attacks".  Any terrorist group- no matter if they are directly involved with our country- should be taken down to show that killing "for fun" or because of hate towards a group of people isn't tolerated and will have consequences. US fighting injustice could possibly save lives as other terrorist groups see the actions taken against the Islamic state group and debate the consequences of thoughtless killing. On the other hand, I don't agree with the power the president (one person) holds to shape the lives of millions (citizens and soldiers alike). In the future, presidents could arise that don't hold what is best for the majority of the American people and could thus have power- shown through Obama and Bush's actions- to wage an unnecessary war. The Constitution does state that the president is the commander in chief of the militia but also states that the president should have his power checked so I believe both ideas should be enforced.

National Security Post

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/can-obama-wage-war-islamic-state-group-without-congressional-approval/ Read the article and watch the video about the expansion of Presidential War Making Power. Identify one contention made by the author or individuals quoted within the article, and provide your opinion of it with support. Also, react to 2 other classmates posts by Friday the 5th (your last blog post / comment).

President Vs. Congress Constitutinal Showdown - Immigration and the Budget

There is a classic showdown heating up between the President and the newly emboldened Republican led Congress over immigration, and that fight may well spill over into the budget battle when history / ego / legacy / political grandstanding intersect. Watch, listen, read and post. 1 paragraph summarize what you have seen, heard or read about the battle. 2nd paragraph share your reaction, including any questions you may have.

Health Care and Keystone

I support the affordable care act because it provides fair ways for people to access insurance. With out the law people can get lost in what insurance to buy and cannot make the correct choice that could decide the outcome of their life. Healthcare cannot be a purely free market issue because these people don’t have a choice in buying insurance or healthcare because their lives are on the line. Because of this it is extremely important that everyone is informed about what their plan covers and everyone has equal access to a healthcare plan which the former system didn’t guarantee. The majority of problems relating to the ACA are regarding its implementation and people’s compliance with it. If we look to Hawaii, who has required employers to provide health insurance since 1974, we see that they didn’t see more people switch to part time jobs and continue to have a very good employment rate. These are only unsubstantiated claims and overall a fair healthcare market will benefit more people.

            The United States must see a substantial economic and overall welfare benefit in order to justify the use of eminent domain by a foreign country. The Keystone Pipeline simply does not pass this litmus test. The majority of job claims assume that all materials and employees will come from the US despite the reality that the majority of supplies and jobs will be contracted to foreign countries. According to a comprehensive report by the University of Cornell, because keystone diverts the oil from refineries in the Midwest and sends it south to be sent oversees; the Midwest could see and increase in their oil costs by two to four billion dollars annually. This cost is enough to negate any benefits from the temporary jobs it creates. Because of the massive political influence of this bill the study furthers its passage could lead to drastic declines in investment in green energy, which creates four times more jobs for every dollar invested compared to oil. The promises of Keystone are merely a façade for expanding foreign interests and big oil in the United States

Obamacare should be repealed because you are forcing companies to give plans to people who will not make them money. While this sounds bad, it is the truth, insurance companies are just like any other company in that they are trying to make money. You would not make a bank give someone a loan if you know they will not repay it. Even with the government compensating them it will not be enough for the loss in profit margin. If a person wishes to take a gamble and not get health insurance that is their choice and they must live with the consequences. Also, according to the Houston Chronicle, hospitals are going to lose $28 billion due to Obamacare's lowering of federal funds to hospitals and setting prices for surgeries.

The keystone pipeline should be approved. It will lower carbon emissions and be better for the environment. It will also lower gas prices, which will lower the cost of an Americans daily commute but also the cost of most goods. This is due to the fact that the transportation of these goods will be cheaper and overhead costs will be cheaper due to the lower cost of energy, both of these due to the decrease in the cost of oil/gasoline.

Healthcare / Environment Post

Watch the two videos below and write 1 paragraph explaining / defending your opinion regarding whether or not the Health Care Reform Act should be repealed. (Feel free to research further). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-Ilc5xK2_E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGN6vlnlJPM and in the same post add a second paragraph that tackles the environment. Write a paragraph that attacks or defends "cap and trade" legislation, OR the passage of the Keystone Pipeline. Use the following video for information, and again, feel free to research further. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdk5n0Lx8Z8

Drug Testing Welfare Recipients

The first article is talking about whether or not recipients of welfare aid should be drug screened and possibly tested to recieve welfare. There are multiple reasons behind this bill being proposed by Republicans- one reason being the concern that welfare recipients will use the federal aid to buy illicit drugs. On the other side, critics note the high expenses that come with drug testing and the lack of aid to recipients who don't pass the drug test. In the second article, Jack Kingston is sharing his popular view that this ruling should be passed. Some reasons include that the welfare could just continue to bring down individuals as they sink deeper into a drug addiction and don't return to the "playing field" of having a job. The expensive funding of drug tests would be solved by reducing Independent Advisory Board spending.

I agree that yes, welfare recipients should be drug tested but the bill should propose alternatives to individuals who don't pass. To sum up the view in favor of the bill, giving certain welfare recipients drug money through welfare is a government that doesn't support what is best for the individuals of its country. Testing individuals would be a step in the direction of solving some of the real problems that are causing poverty stricken individuals to need welfare besides economical reasons. I agree with critics that if the bill would be passed, there needs to be an alternative (counseling, job training, drug therapy, etc.) to the individuals who don't pass the drug test and are unable to recieve welfare. Overall, I think this bill is a step in the right direction for Republican and Democratic compromise for the current welfare program.

drugs testing for poor people

The government is always looking to ensure that its dollars are being effectively spent. One method to ensure this, that has recently been tested in florida, is drug testing for people who are on welfare programs. Many propose policies similar to this on a national level. This is claimed by many to be an effective way to make sure that lower income individuals do not abuse the welfare system. Others such as Vanita Gupta on the other hand claims that these are dehumanizing and put a disproportionate burden on poorer people.
I believe it is wrong to drug test for people on welfare. If we look to other social programs there is no testing required. Someone is not drug tested before a fireman comes to their house and they are not drug tested in order to use roads and bridges. to put this burden on people who need food is to take away their dignity. We do not see this lead to an overall decrease in crime or drug use so there is no reason for the government to do this. this is simply shaming the weakest part of our country who through no fault of their own are in a bad position and just need a little help.

Welfare Drug Tests

       The State of Florida has tried to pass a drug test on welfare. This would make it so that anyone who wished to receive welfare benefits would have to pass a mandatory drug test. However some say that this is a violation to our fourth amendment right of no unlawful search and seizure and that drug testing may lead to more crime because these people will have to get money from other places. Others believe that it is permissible to place conditions on welfare benefits because receiving them is voluntary and that it is not a violation of the fourth amendment right because they are accepting it voluntarily and not forcibly.
       I believe that Lawrence Mead is wrong in saying that it will lead to more drug use because some would have stopped using drugs when they got a job. In my opinion, it is dumb to assume that people who are on drugs would quit because they got on welfare. However, I do agree with Mead's idea to allow people who test positive for drugs to accept welfare benefits and counseling until some time has passed and they are retested. If they test negative, they can stay on welfare. But if they test positive they will no longer receive benefits.

Money in Elections

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/11/iowa-braley-ernst_n_5971390.html

Joni Ernst and Bruce Braley recently squared off in a debate and one of the topics that came up frequently was the topic of dark money and spending in the election. Braley initiated the attack by stating, "They (the Koch Brothers) are the biggest supporters you have in your campaign right now." He also brought up her visit to California where the Koch Brothers funded her campaign. Braley brought up how the Koch brothers have seven companies attacking him and how Ernst has credited them with backing her campaign. Ernst fired back with the fact that Braley is also being funded by billionaire environmentalist John Steyer. The candidates kept firing back and forth about the dark money and anonymous donations that have gone into each other's campaigns and it made me realize just how much money influences politics.

In my personal opinion the spending that goes into elections has gotten out of hand and should be regulated. Braley was said to have been funded by an 'extreme billionaire  environmentalist' and now that billionaire has some control over Braley. He may shift and shape his political ideologies to better fit what his sponsor wants so he can continue to get funding. The same goes for Ernst, because the Koch brothers almost single handily funded her campaign, so obviously she is going to tweak her policies so the Koch brothers will remain happy. Both parties are guilty and are allowing the powerful few to control them. Since their sponsors are allowed to spend a practically infinite amount of money on their candidate we are giving more power to the rich. The longer big fish are allowed to do this, the more candidates they can control and the more these fat cats can affirm their grasp on the government. Because then the powerful few will not be worried about anyone but will only look out for their own private interests.

Election Post

The 2014 Iowa Senate Race is going to go down of one of the most expensive in history. There are already has been 37 million dollars spent on the election and there is still 19 days till election day. There is so much money being spent on this senate seat because it’s the first time in decades that an Iowa Senate seat has been open. This seat could decide the majority in the Senate which will have long lasting effects on American Policy. Thus, why so many different interests groups such as American Crossroads, NRA, and the NextGen Climate Action Committee have spent millions of dollars on this race so candidates with their same ideals will win and will vote for legislation that helps them. Therefore, Super-Pacs have a bigger impact on elections now than they ever have, some believe that Super-Pacs ruin the integrity of elections and others believe that its their right to support and spend money on whatever they choose to, everyone can be their own judge.

I believe that Super-Pacs have a negative effect on elections because they can buy votes, from uninformed voters, through the use of negative tv ads and other forms of propaganda. Most Super-Pac ads are not supporting their candidate but trashing another through negative ads. Through these negative ads Super-Pacs can get uninformed voters to vote for the candidate that helps them. Thus, Super-Pacs ruin the integrity of elections through their use of negative ads which can win votes from the uninformed.

Money in Politics

The article I read was about the various Super Pacs that are involved in the Iowa Senate race. This seat has not been open since the 1980s so both Republicans and Democrats are working tirelessly to win this seat so they have a better shot of getting the majority in the senate. Numerous Superpacs on both sides have donated millions of dollars to both of the candidates running, with the money going to campaign adds, flyers, and other ways of getting out information to the people of Iowa. Most of these Super Pacs are intrest groups such as the NRA which supports Joni Ernst, and Nextgen Climate Action Commitee who supports Braley.

Super Pacs and the big money that comes with them can have many pros and cons when it comes to politics. The money that goes to campaigning can help inform the public where the respective politicians stand on certain issues. These issues can range from gun laws to abortion to education. However the money is also used to run campaign adds against the competing poltican. These adds usually dramatize events and attempt to make the person seem evil even though most of the quotes or facts are taken out of context. The largest problem with Super Pacs is once the optician is elected they usually must repay the Super Pacs that supported them by voting to pass laws that would benefit the large donor even if that is not what the majority of the people want. Although Super Pacs can be good by educatingt he public in political matters, they gave gotten out of hand and have a much larger voice than the common man when it comes to policy making.

http://qctimes.com/news/local/government-and-politics/elections/outside-groups-spend-millions-in-iowa-u-s-senate-race/article_101d396b-17e2-5660-a87b-69b0e6d682d9.html

Outside Groups funding Iowa Senate Race

QC Times Bureau writes about the importance of the upcoming Iowa Senate vote and how many super PACs are contributing to see their desired candidate win the race and have their party in control nationally. Because of the tightness of the race, the amount spent of funding candidates will continue to increase until after the final election of Braley vs. Ernst. According to , more than $37 million has gone into Iowa Senates race from outside groups. Ian Vandewalker includes that the amount spent by these groups is so important that once a candidate is officially elected,  favors will have to be returned and remembered. Campaign finance records from The Federal Election Commission share the main outside groups that are pouring money into the Senate race and their motives behind the outflow of money.
I agree with Ian Vandewalker when he says that the candidates have to know who spent money on behalf of them- this could bring up a negative side of outside group spending. Out of "human nature", the candidate will have to thank or return favors to that outside group instead of initially focusing on problems threatening the people. I think that money does have a significant role in the process, but in the end it doesn't matter as much. Americans who are strong members of one party will vote for their candidate whether or not they have seen a questionable ad about them. The only Americans the ads/commercials affect are those who go to either side in voting. Because both parties end up generally spending the same amount of money building up or putting down specific candidates, these Americans will be influenced to vote for the candidate based on what they stand for- not necessarily the party they are. Overall, the money spent on the senate races can only effect the general public to an extent, but mostly just discourages citizens from being politically active.

SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY WEEK 2 POST

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-welfare-recipients-be-tested-for-drugs GO to the above site, and read the first article that is the debate intro., then choose a second one from the yes / no arguments below - this second choice should challenge what your first instincts are. Finally, post 2 paragraphs, the first a summary of the main points of the two articles. The second paragraph is your opinion, and the arguments that best support your opinion at this point.

Money in elections owen weber

Money in Elections
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/us/late-surge-of-money-buoys-republicans-in-races-that-will-decide-control-of-senate.html?_r=0
The ted talk showed how an increase in money in elections can create greater corruption in politics. this is being proven true in Iowa where many interests are at stake so outside groups begin to pour huge amounts of money into these elections. A republican senate could have huge implications for many businesses and interests groups explaining why even if democrats are raising more money as the article says the majority of republican support comes from these outside groups. these groups see what races can be won and strategically place money in areas like Iowa to give candidates like Joni Ernst a chance of winning.
In the end i don't believe that money will have a huge implication in the election. No amount of campaign adds will effect voters opinions on the main issues at stake. Where its effects can be seen are in the post election political world. Joni Ernst and Bruce Braily will never be convinced to drift from their core issues but as more money comes into play in their elections they can easily mold their views to smaller changes regarding corporate tax law and agricultural regulations that would not become major voting issues in upcoming elections. No matter the candidate they weigh these seemingly small issues under the huge amount of possible campaign contributions. These end up giving enormous tax breaks and huge loopholes that slow down the rest of the government. The biggest harm of campaign spending is hard to be seen but poses one of the greets risks to a well functioning government.

How Money in Elections is Causing a Corruption in our Democracy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/11/iowa-braley-ernst_n_5971390.html

Lawrence Lessig spoke in detail of how he feels the money in elections has caused a corruption that is taking away power from the people. This is clearly the case, especially with the current Iowa Senate election. In a recent debate between Braley and Ernst, the two verbally accosted each other in reference to their different monetary sources. Said Braley, "The truth is you attended two secret donor meetings in California that were hosted by the Koch brothers...You credited them with launching your Senate campaign. And these are the same Koch brothers who have seven different organizations attacking me right now." This shows a correlation to the points that Lessig was making. He showed that the elections are supposed to be in the power of the people, and on paper, they are. However through donations that are largely from a small number of funders donating large sums of money, the people do not actually have complete control over the election at all.

In my opinion, I completely agree with Mr. Lessig. I think there needs to be a shift in donations in our country's elections. There is corruption in the way elections are run now. In my article, Ernst combated Braley's accusations about the Koch brothers by saying that Braley, himself had a majority of his funding in thanks to a 'extreme billionaire environmentalist'. Assuredly, with the evidence from this article, neither candidate is innocent. Both are using a small number of funders, and are bending their decisions to keep those funders happy and in result, funding. In order to solve this corruption in every election, not just the Iowa Senate race, there needs to be a shift from the 'small number of people giving large dollars' to a system that is funded through 'large number of people giving small dollars'. If this were the case, we would have a system where the candidates would still look to please their funders, but they would be pleasing the citizens, and not deep-pocketed investors who have private interests.

Money's Effects on Elections

https://www.opensecrets.org/races/indexp.php?cycle=2014&id=IAS2

          Lessig talks about how there are two elections, a money election and a general election. This means that the "Lesters," or the funders, pick who the general public is going to vote on.  As you can see in the article listed above, the Republican Candidates who fought for the Republican Nomination and lost had less money than Joni Ernst. Also, Joni Ernst is currently ahead in the polls and has almost $10 million more spent in her favor. Political Action Committees are not even allowed to coordinate with the candidates, which mean instead they coordinate with each other. This means that each candidate is treated more like a pawn and less like an individual person. Funders are not electing candidates because they agree with their views or what they stand for, but because they will vote in their favor.
          While I think spending that much money on a campaign is crazy. I do not think that the government has any right to regulate it. I also disagree with Lessig's idea of providing citizens with vouchers so that they can fund campaigns for multiple reasons; such as the fact that our government does not have the money to do so and that if every citizen gets a voucher, they will essentially just be casting their vote earlier. Also the voucher would solidify their stance and voters would be less likely to be swayed by debates or commercials if they had already effectively cast their votes. So, while I will not be donating millions of dollars to campaigns, I do not believe that the government should regulate the flow of money into campaigns.

Money in Elections

I used the QC Times article: http://qctimes.com/news/local/government-and-politics/elections/outside-groups-spend-millions-in-iowa-u-s-senate-race/article_101d396b-17e2-5660-a87b-69b0e6d682d9.html

Lawerence Lessig in Ted talks makes a fantastic comparison that I am sure helps many more people who have watched this video understand exactly what our government elections actually are. Lesterland, as he called it, was the same thing as America with the general elections and the money elections. According to the article, an estimated 37 million dollars are spent on the senate elections. With Tom Harkin retiring it is a big deal in Iowa, in fact, it is the second most expensive Senate seat race in America with a really close race with Kentucky. Everyone that is running for the seat, as Lessig calls it, are "shape shifters", they are saying some things to get the most money possible that they can.
I think that too much money is being put into this election. I understand that for Iowa, a race hasn't happened lie this in a long time, but political races should not be all about the money. With people becoming "shape shifters" they are not saying what they really want to be/do in their time in senate. Also, for people who want to genuinely run for senate, they would be pushed out by the people who have the most money. In my opinion, the race for the senate seat is at least 25% based on money now.

Outside groups spend millions in Iowa US Senate race

In Iowa's US Senate race, outside groups have spent more than $37 million to influence votes. Because these funders have the financial means, they have more of a say in who the candidates are going to be than others. These funders cannot directly support certain candidates, however, their use of commercials to negatively shine a light on the opposing candidate is in favor of the funders preferred candidate. In the TED Talks video, Lawrence Lessig explained how these funders support the candidate who agrees with their views. Whoever wins the race is expected to "return favors" to those who spent money on their campaign.
I think that money will always play a large part in politics. However, I believe that the rich should be able to alter the balance of who's in the lead. Money always complicates things and I don't believe that the rich and elite should have more influence in the candidates race than other people. In a current race, Joni Ernst had a commercial where she talked about her values and in response, someone made a commercial bashing her commercial. That's clear evidence that money is not used in a positive way for more campaigns.
http://qctimes.com/news/local/government-and-politics/elections/outside-groups-spend-millions-in-iowa-u-s-senate-race/article_101d396b-17e2-5660-a87b-69b0e6d682d9.html

National Groups Spend Millions to affect Iowa Senate Race - http://thegazette.com/subject/news/national-groups-spend-millions-to-affect-iowa-senate-race-20141019

     
    According to thegazette.com, national groups are spending millions of dollars in an attempt to influence voters, as well as the outcome of the senate race. This is proving that Lessig is correct when in the video, Lessig talks about how the majority of the people that fund candidates are large groups, or Super PACs, and not individuals. These huge groups are donating millions of dollars and it affects the outcome majorly. For example, The National Republican Senatorial Committee has spent over 4 million dollars in Iowa alone. The sole purpose of this is to get republicans elected to the U.S. senate. In the video, Lessig talks about the "Lester Election" (the money election) and how it ties into the general election. In order for a candidate to even participate in the general election, they first must do well in the "Lester Election," where the "lesters" are the funders.
          I think that Super PACs have too much power and I don't think they should have any involvement whatsoever. They have too much influence and control over the candidates, or who is even going to be a candidate. They influence extreme views of their party. I also think that they take away from important issues because they are too busy trying to make their opponent look bad.

Super PAC's impact on Iowa Senate Race Logan Lira

Outside Groups Spend Millions on Iowa Senate Race

According to qctimes.com outside groups have spend almost 40,000,000 dollars to help with the Iowa senate race. With that number still growing with only a couple days left until election and the race is still to close to call for some. But with help of these nameless groups and Super PAC's. The reason for all this money being poured in to the race is because as of right now its a toss up. With the former democratic senate chair stepping down that could be disastrous for the democratic party to lose a spot on the senate. Iowa is only behind Kentucky for the importance of this seat for senate and just behind in money given. However wins this could easily make it so their party controls the chambers. That is why millions are getting put into this election. Ernst vs Braley could be the most significant election this year and the winner owes it all to their sponsors. They don't know who they are but without them they don't get near as much money to promote themselves and to hurt trier composition. And with "betting on your horse"  having benefits for you it could be bad if they lose. All money spent would be wasted, You lose the seat, and the person who did win will remember you being against them and could show bias to those who helped him/her if they get elected. All of this is to all promote self interest by the super PAC's so they can win the seat and hopefully get a bigger say through there candidate. Overall money talks and is now more important then ever before. Personally i liked it better when money was as big of a key reason for election but with the society we live in there will always be the people wanting the slightest  edge and that will only keep getting bigger. We will see who is not only better on election day but who had the better sponsor and super PAC's on their side as well.

Other sites used were https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?disp=R
and http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Senate-midterm-elections-Super-PACS/2014/04/16/id/565926/
I also feel there was little to no bias in these and were properly displayed and equally carried out

                                                                                                                      By Logan Lira

Groups spending millions to affect Iowa's senate race

http://thegazette.com/subject/news/national-groups-spend-millions-to-affect-iowa-senate-race-20141019

      Money and the senate race or any other political race go hand in hand. Lawrence Lessig compared the U.S.A to his made up Lester world and how the politics are twisted in favor of the richer people who pay. In the article it stated  over $37 million has been spent on the race this year. The article and Lawrence Lessig the senates will have to lean with what their founders would want. Whoever wins, they’re going to have had millions of dollars spent for them, and they’re going to remember those favors. … That’s not to say they’re bad people or corrupt,” said Ian Vandewalker. As Lawrence said only a small of the population fund the races. So many senators are in debt with the people who funded them.
        I agree that the whole population should fund the politics instead of big groups. That will help influences of just a small group of people go down. People are not sure who will win right now but who ever win owes favors to the spender not the people. This kind of thing must stop if our senators will not truly represent the people if the more often represent the funders. Over 19.9 million is spent supporting  Ernest against Braley. Over 17.1 million is spent on Braley against Ernest. This money should come from the people not the funders.

Campaign Financing, Democrat’s ‘Farmer’ Affront Draws GOP Money to Iowa Senate Race by Brandon Alpern

According to the Wall Street Journal republicans are sponsoring a 250 thousand dollar campaign called, "Not for Sale." The ad is accusing Braley of insulting Senator Chuck Grassley. This proves Lessig's core point that the "Lester's" have all the say in politics and are able to manipulate the public to inform them on non-important issues. Furthermore,the article exemplifies the use of Super Packs to communicate to the public their own personal agenda. For example,the National Republican Senatorial Committee is issuing 305,000 robocalls to Iowan households targeting him for "insulting Iowa's farmers." Money should not be used to voice your opinion for several reasons. First, money used to finance ads are generally non informative. For example, the 250 thousand dollar campaign ad was used for accusing Braley on insulting farmers, instead of focusing on important issues. Second, Super Packs come at an opportunity cost. For instance, low socioeconomic households will have trouble voicing their opinions on policies because their voice will be drowned out by money from corporations. Lastly, the money used to finance insulting ads creates an arms race. Braley has fired back against Ernst with numerous ads financed by hundreds of thousands of dollars to insult her. Money should not be used to to project your voice because it causes more harm than good.

Election 2014

http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim view the Ted Talk, Lawrence Lessig: We the People, and the Republic we must reclaim. Then research "money and Iowa Senate race" or something similar. Find and read an article from a quality source. Write 1 paragraph that connects the content to the video - how does it support or refute Lessig's message? Explain. Write 2nd paragraph on your opinion... of politics and the role of money - in current race in particular.

I think the Cap and Trade policy is a good thing. Many people in the United States, including the world, create a lot of pollution. The Cap and Trade has created reasonable goals they wish to accomplish and these goals can be met. They have a set of steps already mapped out which shows how organized they are. They have an action plan and are just waiting for Congress to sign the policy. The steps the Cap and Trade policy would implement would help improve our society's health.Congress would make a good decision by signing the policy. 

I feel indifferent about the Health Reform act. I somewhat agree that all people should be allowed to receive medical services from the government, but only in the cases of severe injury or sickness. I somewhat disagree in the aspect that I feel like people should be responsible and get a good education and find jobs that will support them and give them the benefits of medical insurance. I also don't see how the government going to all the different people and asking them to pay taxes is going to help reduce the national debt. It is just more money that is coming out of the peoples pockets to help the government help the people in need. The Health Reform act is very confusing and complicated; which makes me feel indifferent about the act.   

Environment and Healthcare

Watch both of these videos, one "Health Care Reform Act Explained", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwN1OwdUkgg and the other "The Facts of Cap and Trade". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-Ilc5xK2_E This is a Cliffnotes on 2 very controversial topics that come up frequently in modern day politics. For your blog, write a reaction / opinion paragraph about each topic on a single post. Also respond to one other classmate's reaction / opinion.

National Security Policy

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/22/world/middleeast/isis-believed-to-have-as-many-as-17000-fighters.html Read article and watch included video segments. This is a solid back story of U.S. involvement in Iraq present day. Comment on what you can learn from the article and segments over any of the following topics: ISIS / ISIL threat in general - reaction / questions U.S. options / key players - reaction / questions If you share opinions about anything, provide support specifically from article or segments

United States Economy and Fiscal Policy

Read and watch the included link and answer as a response below: How successful / unsuccessful was Obama's Fiscal Policy approach to the Recession we have just endured? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbxXns0zero http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/lessons-from-the-recovery-act/?_php=true&_type=blogs&ref=economicstimulus&_r=0 You must reply to answer the above question. You must also return to the blog at least 1 day later to read and react to classmates' comments.

National Security Policy

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/01/top-homeland-security-policy-priorities-for-congress-in-2014 Top Priorities in Congress -- Research one of the priorities and post web site of an article from a respected news source,providing a summary about its current status.

Health Care Reform and Environment

Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmdbllWOOzs and go to this web site http://healthcarereform.procon.org/ and skim through Pro / cons at least #1 Write a persuasive paragraph as if you are an opponent of the Health Care Act and explain why our country would be better off without universal health care coverage. Then read this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-cohen/climate-change-and-the-am_b_1694462.html # 2 Write a paragraph explaining political reasons as to why the United States will have a difficult time addressing the threat of climate change.

Social Welfare Policy

Watch the video through the link below and read the article. Respond to this 1 question with thorough explanation that uses evidence from the article to support your argument: SHOULD WELFARE RECIPIENTS BE DRUG TESTED AS A CONDITION FOR QUALIFICATION? (Be thorough - your one answer is worth 20 points). http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-welfare-recipients-be-tested-for-drugs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HoiccGaI3I

United States Economy and Fiscal Policy

Read and watch the included link and answer #2 as a response below: How successful / unsuccessful was Obama's Fiscal Policy approach to the Recession we have just endured? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbxXns0zero http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/lessons-from-the-recovery-act/?_php=true&_type=blogs&ref=economicstimulus&_r=0

Minimum Wage debate

Read / watch these and post answers in the comments below to #1 Should the Federal Government raise the minimum wage? Be sure to support your answer. http://business.time.com/2014/02/28/an-animated-history-of-the-minimum-wage/ http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-03-17/business/ct-biz-0317-work-advice-huppke-20140317_1_minimum-wage-income-inequality-increase

Analyzing political cartoons: Choose 1 visual element and explain what information / opinion the cartoonist is trying to communicate. Contribute your answer through the comments below. You may instead comment on another students' comment, disagreeing, or adding an alternative interpretation to something they have already stated.

David Niska- Social Welfare/Policymaking-Government Expenditures

Summary: Expenditures are another way that the government can affect individual's income. A major way that the government provides for the people is by using "in-kind" benefits, which has cash value but is not cash, like food stamps. In 2002, about 19 million people received food stamps and that is down from 28.9 million. Every year many people receive government checks through Social Security beneficiaries, retired government employees, veterans, and other groups. Another type of in-kind benefit is a college loan.


Reaction: I am glad to see that the population of people who rely on food stamps has dropped but it's sad that there are that many people in the United States that need food stamps. I'm also glad that the government has college loans as an in-kind service, this allows a greater majority of people to go to college.


Connection: My connection to this goes back to the majority of people who vote in the middle, because if we had people who only voted for no government services we wouldn't have things like college loans but if we had people that only voted for the government to be more involved, then there would be to many regulations.

Poverty in America Is Mainstream

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/02/poverty-in-america-is-mainstream/

Summary: This article is about poverty in the United States. It explains a lot of the misconceptions about overtly and the truth about what's going on. For example a high percentage of the population is in poverty and that it is very difficult to get out of. The welfare programs we have aren't  as helpful as we want them to be. It's hard to have an effective program when you have to make cuts and changes to it constantly. This article is a blog so it does have some bias to it. However it does have some factual information in it.

Reaction: I think it's sad that so many people are in poverty. It's difficult to help them because money has to be spent on so many things. It is hard for people in poverty to get out of it and there isn't really any action being done to try and make it better. Every time someone tries to me legislation to make things better for those in poverty it gets struck down and never gets passed.

Connection: this connects to the gridlock that we have in congress. No steps can be taken towards fixing the problem because the two parties can't agree on anything.

"Obama’s Puzzle: Economy Rarely Better, Approval Rarely Worse" - Haidyn Hank - Economics #2

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/us/politics/obamas-puzzle-economy-rarely-better-approval-rarely-worse.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%23%2Feconomy%2F30days%2F


Summary:

When President Obama gave his State of the Union address in January, the economy had never been better during his time in the White House; however, at the same time, the complaints and criticisms had never been so frequent and so brutal. Some economists have even gone so far as to call 2014 a "comeback" year. According to the New York Times, "Demand for labor is up and the unemployment rate is below 7 percent for the first time since November 2008." Consumers and businesses alike are spending more money and exports have been growing once again. Obama's good ratings have continued to plummet, as the negative ratings continue to skyrocket. Despite the economy being in the best shape its been in for quite some time, people still don't seem pleased with the work the president has done so far throughout his career. One of the reasons this could be occurring is because, although the president has done a lot, many people aren't seeing direct effects. People don't like the fact that, despite the talk of it, they aren't seeing any changes in their lives and their lifestyles. They aren't seeing the changes they want to see or the changes they think that they deserve.

Reaction:

I think that more Americans should be happy with the economy and stop criticizing Obama so much for it because he came into this when he was first elected president and has been working to fix it since he walked into the White House. I know we've had this crappy economy for a long time already, but I think that if people could be a little more patient, they would see the results that they want to see. If they would give more time for an effect to happen, they would see a direct effect and see how President Obama's works has boosted the economy and he is gradually fixing it to the best of his ability.

Connection:

This situation can be connected to when I did a little bit of research on some issues Terry Branstad has been having for class. I learned that Branstad is being criticized for not having enough african american people on his staff. This isn't really his fault though because he suggested an african american person to be a member of his staff, but they were turned down by other people. This connects because Obama is doing the work that needs to be done and working hard to make the economy better, and despite the fact that it has been getting better, he is getting frequent criticisms on how he's doing his job, mostly by people who couldn't do it any better. The connection is that Branstad and Obama are both trying to do something to fix the criticisms, but nothing is really working and they are still being criticized when they are actually trying to make things better.

Social Welfare - Olivia Solbrig

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/business/a-fine-line-between-social-welfare-and-politics.html

A Fine Line Between Social and Political

Summary: after a legislation passed in 2001, which said that political committees to disclose a list of their donors to the people, a lot of these committees found a loophole where they called themselves a "social welfare organization" which has their own rules. Officially, social welfare organizations are defined as organizations which are not looking for profit that operate EXCLUSIVELY for the promotion of social welfare. This means they don't own income taxes on their investments if they are identified as such an organization. Yet many of these social welfare organizations do things like try to influence elections and promote issues, which do not fit into the category. The article says that there is a lot of suspicion in the IRS about this happening, but it does not seem like they will do anything to stop it in the foreseeable future. 

Reaction: it was a rather long article but I read the whole thing because I was so interested in the fact that it is known that political committees do this yet nothing is done. I don't think that they should get this tax break and not be subject to the laws of a committee if they just say they're a "social welfare organization". If they are actually following the criteria to be one then it seems fine, but from the way the article sounds they are not going by the rules and they are pushing the limits on their loophole. 

Connection: in class we have talked numerous times about legislation that committees or parties don't like that get passed and how they always seem to find some sort of loophole in the system to do what they want with the money they get. This is obviously one of those situations.

Sydney Wientjes; Healthcare/Environment: "Child dies from infected rat; family sues Petco"

"Child dies from infected rat; family sues Petco"

Summary: A ten year old boy from San Diego passed away last June due to a disease he contracted from his pet rat purchased at Petco. A lawsuit was just filed by the Pankey family against the chain for an unspecified amount. It was proven by a medical examiner that the disease was, in fact, caused by a disease commonly called "rat-bite fever." The illness set in and proved fatal in less than a day for young Aidan. The lawsuit was put on hold because the attorneys were awaiting lab results to confirm that the disease came directly from the rodent. Though Petco gave its condolences to the family, they are going through with the lawsuit to ensure that this doesn't happen again. However, Petco is determined to defend itself with the fact that they do place warnings on their website that all rats, no matter how harmless they appear, may be carriers.

Reaction: This incident surprised me because of how rare and violent the circumstances seemed to be. The article stated that this has only been recorded in approximately 200 people (Center for Food Security and Public Health at Iowa State University), and only a handful had ever been fatal. In my opinion, the family should receive at least some money for their trauma. In addition, I believe that Petco (and all other registered pet stores that sell rodents) should be required to administer tests to separate the infected rats from the safe ones in order to not risk the chance of this happening again and bringing an even larger, more intensive lawsuit against the company.

Connection: This article can be connected to the numerous litigant epitaphs we have covered throughout the course. I believe that this lawsuit has the potential to leave a mark on all pet stores and has the power to have laws enacted on the federal level to closer regulate pet stores.

Sarah Flynn Adoption: Child Welfare or Business?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-ligtvoet/adoption-child-welfare-or-business_b_4804779.html

Summary: Providing social services for the first family to overcome their problems is all about adding time to the equation. Not an adoption plan, but a life plan has to be made.  Adoption should only become an option when family preservation is just impossible or when the efforts to keep the family together failed. Adoption should not be separate of child welfare services, but part of them. Parents should stay with their kids and the gov. should help. 

Reaction: I think this is too and bad I think that if you don't thinknyoubarevthe best option for your child then you should be able to freely let them go but if you want to take care of them and just don't have the money to then then gov. should help you.

Connection: this is like welfare checks and how you should have to show your doing something in order to receive them.

IRS Sets Its Sights on Political 'Dark Money'- Social Welfare- Brianna Klabunde

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-center-for-public-integrity/irs-sets-its-sights-on-po_b_4351355.html

Summary: A new form of "dark money" is being used to donate to parties. As long as nonprofit groups such as Americans for Prosperity are strictly meant to aid social welfare and or the common good these groups are allowed to donate money without a name. The concern is that there is are not strict guidelines on what "governmental spending" is.

Reaction: I think people are just trying to find anyway they can to cheat the system. Not having a donors name listed can lead to corruption through special treatment. Not to mention, the lack of strict rules about "government spending" is concerning. When it comes to donating money to parties, the whole business seems to be full of loopholes.

Connection: This links directly back to our unit on PACs and soft money. Rules set up by the FEC are constantly being bent. Un-traced money can lead to corruption. These problems are just getting worse and something should be done to make the guidelines more clear.

Kylee Cangas - Privacy Please: Tools to Shield Your Smartphone

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/technology/personaltech/privacy-please-tools-to-shield-your-smartphone-from-snoopers.html?hpw&rref=technology&action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DSectionFront%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3Dus%26t%3Dqry831%23%2Fnational%2Bsecurity%2F7days%2F&_r=0

Summary- The article goes into detail about the recent National Security scandals and how to keep your smart phone safe. It relates it to the recent issues of the government tapping into our privacy to get information. The article gives several apps and points of advice for how to shield and encrypt ones messages, calls, and browsing information. It gives people options who are worried about their privacy. There are several companies coming out with apps and even a new smart phone that will better protect someone's information.

Reaction- I think these are good things to know, however I do not think this is a huge problem. Also many of the Apps require both communicators to have them and be operating within them so it seems rather inconvenient. Keeping people's privacy is important, but at some point if you are going through all of the trouble to stay private then it brings up the question, what for? There was some controversy with government security recently and it is reasonable that people are concerned about it however I do not think that the government would intrude on the people's privacy for no reason at all, and those who go through all of the trouble must have something to hide.

Connection- This connects to the lack of trust in the government that we have been seeing. If people believe the government is infringing on their privacy it will contribute to a lack of trust and belief in the government, which we have already seen. It also connects to the constitution in terms of search and seizure rights and whether the government, in a national security issue, has the right to intrude on people's privacy if they believe they are protecting them.

Henry Crowley National Security U.S., allies agree...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-allies-agree-on-standards-for-which-opposition-groups-in-syria-will-receive-aid/2014/02/20/7b5b8b02-9a53-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html

Summary: Syria's ongoing civil war has taken 140,000 lives and has sent millions of others, poor and starving, in pursuit of safer countries for residency. America and its allies attempt to decide how to differentiate who the bad guys are in the battle torn nation. Shipments of weapons, training, intelligence, and other support also have increased. As the council of world governments bicker and debate on who to side with, Arab and European officials have taken notice that the U.S. is taking a more aggressive stance on the issue, while persuading others to do the same. Some dismiss the point of view as justified due to rifts appearing between rebel ranks, distinguishing friend from foe.

Reaction: The Middle East is a mess. There is no doubt that foreign assistance can help heal the country. But, in the time it takes for Superpowers to decide who to help, hundreds perish in the name of war and religion. Distinguishing the enemies from the allies is essential, but we waste time and skills talking when we should be acting. It's not my place to say this, because I don't have the experience or the knowledge, but perhaps it is clear on the organizations we should help to those that decide how and when to help.

Connection: The article reminds me of the class time discussing the president's role as Commander-in-Chief. The leader of the nation has a say in foreign conflicts and works strategically with other commanders. The weapons and training going towards Syria are part of a decision made by the president and other military advisers.

Blake Bodenschatz nuclear plant break-in

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/18/nun-nuke-protest-sentencing/5577947/

Summary:  A group of three were able to break into the Y-12 national security complex.  They got in and only defaced property but the government is wondering what would have happened if they got their hands on the weapons-grade uranium.  The three were sentenced to anywhere between 26-35 months.  The group has many supporters stating that they did the right thing defacing the plant because they are slowly making the country a safer place.  Many people are questioning if they should be punished like this because they are not terrorists or spies.



Reaction:  I believe that these three should still be punished because they got into a nuclear factory and vandalized it but what would have happen if they decided to take it a step further and use the factory to their own gain.  This makes me question if these three people can get into a nuclear factory so easy what would happen if a terrorist or someone along the same lines got into the factory and used the weapons-grade uranium against the country.



Connection:  This case brought up the Espionage act of 1917 that make sure that any sabotage on federal ground is deemed as illegal and punished.  This connects because the three people sabotaged a nuclear factory of the government and it must be punished because of this act.

Jason Erbst- Economics- "The U.S. Economy Might Be Doomed—but the Stock Market Isn't"

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/02/the-us-economy-might-be-doomed-but-the-stock-market-isnt/283905/

Summary- there is a radical economist who throws all these irrational things out there but some things he has said has pertained to be true. This one thing being talked about is how many may think if the GDP is tanking, so is the economy. Especially out of the recession, this has been easily shown as false. The stock market is independent to each company and it's values.

Reaction- I followed the bait thinking that as GDP decreases so does the market, but I was surprised to find out this is false. I am interested to see how this trend will continue as the years go on and possibly as we ourselves get out of this debt.

Connection- I see a connection between this and the president in how he is always blamed for things that happen in our country. As well does how the economy is doing with the stock market. But as this article shows, the market is not always directly connected with the economy's performance much like how the president isn't always to blame.

Emma Walraven- Healthcare and Environment- Oil and gas drilling pollutes well water, states confirm

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/05/22190011-oil-and-gas-drilling-pollutes-well-water-states-confirm?lite

Summary: Over the past two years, there have been complaints in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Texas about oil drilling polluting private water wells. These complaints have been increasing more and more over the past year or so. Even more so, these are states that have "nurtured the nation's energy boom". Over the past 10 years, hydraulic fracturing has led to a boom in oil and natural gas production around the nation. It has decreased our need for imports and led to billions of dollars of income for companies and landowners. On the down side, it has increased pollution fears. The most common type of pollution is said to be methane, not chemicals from the drilling process. Investigating these complaints could be difficult because some regions have naturally high methane gas pollution and other problems unrelated to drilling. On the other hand, people trying to understand the pros and cons of the drilling boom need alot of details from complaints, even if they might be natural causes.

Reaction: This topic, for me, is complicated because I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, I do think it's good we have increased in oil and decreased in the need to borrow it from other countries (especially those we are not even allies with). I also, however, believe pollution is an important issue and should be handled immediatley. I'm not a doctor and not even close to an expert, but i'm assuming that oil polluting water has to be a big health hazard. I think all complaints should be investigated, even those that may include natural causes because you never know where they could lead to.

Connection: This article reminds me of committees in Congress. There are certain committees in Congress that deal with environmental issues and if someone were to come up with a solution to the issue this article discusses, the bill would be sent to that specific committee.

David Niska Economic Policymaking- Wal-Mart and the World Economy

Summary: Wal-Mart is a key company for the world economy. Wal-Mart's goods used to be made in the United States but not anymore. Wal-Mart has looked for cheaper ways to have their goods made and in the process, they have turned to Chinese companies. These Chinese companies produce these goods at a lower cost than the same item being made in the U.S., but in the end when U.S. factories move overseas, the jobs do as well as they would have in the U.S.. What the U.S. is worrying about is offshoring, because "global capitalism could have a new face, Wal-Mart. That would be bad news"(Business Week). Many people believe that Wal-Mart has had as big of an influence in the American economy as Henry Ford did when he made the assembly line.


Reaction: I think that it's scary that a store like Wal-Mart could be the face of the global economy and that it would be representing America. America should have a better spokes person than a company like Wal-Mart that gets most of it's goods from China. I think that there should be some limit on how much companies can offshore.


Connection: My connection is back to pluralist theory: a theory of government and politics emphasizing that politics is mainly a competition among groups, each one pressing for its own preferred policies. Wal-Mart is making a pretty good name for itself in the world

Jenn Campbell National Security: NSA Changes

http://www.cagle.com/2014/01/nsa-changes-2/#.Uwx_mRpLsDs.email

Summary:

The cartoon is of Obama, the NSA, and the American people. Obama is holding a mascara wand  and asking  if he fixed the problem. In the cartoon the eye is still really big in the window. This would imply that the cartoonist believes the NSA is still going to spy on the American people. Overall the cartoon is saying that Obama isn't going to do anything to curb the NSA , he is just going to make it look prettier to the American people.

Reaction:

As you know, I'm usually a big supporter of our current president, but I agree with the cartoonist. I feel that to him our nation's "security" outweighs our privacy when it comes to our nation's leaders. But I believe that it is his job to compromise with the NSA and our right to privacy. On the other band I'd rather have my phone calls monitored and be kept safe than the alternative. Overall, I am just glad I don't have to make these decisions.

Connection:

As a crisis manager, the president has to make "quick judgements on the basis of sketchy information". The president has to do this job by monitoring events almost anywhere, including in our own country to avoid sleeper cell attacks. I understand why the president wouldn't want to curb the NSA's monitoring because it has helped, risk the general population's uncomfortableness to save a few lives.

Annclare thachil- healthcare and enviroment "Obama orders new effeciency for big trucks"

Summary: 

The article talks about the new policy concerning new fuel standard and big trucks. Obama has ordered big trucks to be more fuel efficient to cut back on greenhouse gases emissions. Researchers are saying that this method will be  enable Obama to reach his goal of cutting back pollution by 17 percent by 2020. Obama stated some reasons why this could be positive for the nation. It will improve gas mileage, and as a result of that we will be less dependent on oil imports. Truck and vehicle manufactures disagree  with Obama saying that it will increase vehicle prices and  decrease the safety standard. Obama also hopes that this policy will help persuade other countries to do the same. 

Reaction: 

I think that this policy is very good for the enviroment. Climate changes are definetly one of the major problems out there and I am happy that someone does something about it. I also think that Obama will get more supporters because many are worried about global warming. But I'm am not completely for this policy because there could be some dangers associated with them like accidents. Overall, I think that this policy will have a big effect on the future because it might reduce the chances of global warming. 

Connection: 

The connection to government is that Obama ordering big truck companies to be more fuel effiecent is that it is one of the executive powers of the president. He works as the chief  executive to run our government and issue executive orders. And he could do this with or without congress. So it doesn't matter if the congress doesn't support him on this policy. Obama "ordering truck companies" shows how much power a president has. Also, it shows what a big role the president had in a country. 

Matt Van Horn-environment- obama orders new efficiency for big trucks

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/19/us/politics/obama-to-request-new-rules-for-cutting-truck-pollution.html


Summary- Obama is moving forward with his efforts to reduce carbon emmissions in the US. Having big rig trucks become more fuel, and carbon efficient would help greatly with limiting the emsions of carbon dioxide in the air. Trucks travel day and night, consuming a huge anount of gasaline. Limiting these emisons is a huge step forward. He is also limitng the emisions of coal pollution from smoke stacks And factories. He wants to reach his goal of reducing emisions by around 20 percent from 2005 to 2020.

Reaction- I like what Obama is trying to do with these executive orders. The environment is an inmportant part of our lives and we need to do everything possible to preserve and protect it. Reducing these emisions is important in changing environmental policy. We need to start out small and fix those problems before moving to a bigger scale with more difficult problems. All in all agree fully with what he is doing and i think he should keep it up.

Connection- in the article it says he used an executive order to do this. I think its great that he did so, by overriding a divided congress and getting to business. This is a prime example of why that policy was implemented. So the president could work on his agenda and not be halted by party biased representatives.

Doyle A Strong National Defense Should Be Our First Priority

http://blog.heritage.org/2014/02/22/defending-effective-defense/

Summary: Recent federal budgets have cut military spending. We will see military levels drop to the lowest they have been since world war II. We will also se a halt in nuclear missile research until 2030. At which point all of our missiles will be over 40 years old. We expect nuclear pacts to protect us when countries have a history of disregarding them.

Reaction: Military spending cuts are detrimental to the US. As Teddy said, "speak softly and carry a big stick."  This is the equivalent of handing the stick to our enemies and picking up a nerds rope. We cannot afford to cripple our defense, especially now. Most of all we cant afford to trust russia after the psychosis of these olympics.

Connection: Governments are formed to protect the people who make it up. They always have been and will continue to be. If this key characteristic is lost from ours it will put us on a downward slope. We already lack faith in our government but if that government cannot defend us? That is no government at all.

Liz Flanagan Economics- US consumer confidence dips slightly in February

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-consumer-confidence-dips-slightly-in-february/2014/02/25/36e1d9b4-9e30-11e3-878c-65222df220eb_story.html

Summary- US consumer confidence has fallen this month due to the outlook for business conditions and jobs. The confidence rate has dropped a whole percentage from last month (79 to 78). Consumers do not foresee any considerable momentum being gained in the months ahead. Businesses are mostly concerned with how this will affect consumer spending which is over 70% of  economic income. However, views about current conditions have improved for four consecutive months (including this month) are are currently at their highest in over six years. The predictions for the rest of the month and the coming months are pulling the ratings down still.

Reaction- This decrease in ecomic confidence makes sense. It's a slow time of year to begin with and our confidence level in our economy fluctuates all the time. However, I do find in interesting that ratings continue to increase and are the highest they've been in years. It seems backwards that ratings are so high yet our economic confidence is so low.

Connection- This up and down movement of our confidence levels is a lot like the months following the election of a new president. The president will often feel the need to pass legislation that the people will like because they just elected him into office (mandate theory of elections). However, when push comes to shove, we know that the president will do what seems better for the long run regardless of public approval. When this happens approval and confidence of the president will go down, much like the economic confidence goes down when we project declining business conditions in the coming months.

Carter Brown National Security cyberattacks

Debate on Cyberattacks
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/25/world/middleeast/obama-worried-about-effects-of-waging-cyberwar-in-syria.html?ref=nationalsecurityagency

Summary:
This article talks about Obamas worry to use cyber weapons on Syria and worsen the war there. On one hand they would be a good way to get things done and without the risk of our soldiers. But it could also end up in more problems for America. So he is still thinking about and and not making to much public on if we will use them or not.

Reaction:
I think we should use them. If we can do anything that makes it so less troops have to go over and fight somewhere then I'm all for it. I'd rather spend more money than more lives.

Connection:
We are learning about the cabinet of the president and in this situation he is probably talking to his cabinet and more specifically the secretary of  defense. He uses his advisors to help him figure out what he will do in situations exactly like this.

http://conservbyte.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Democrats-face-reality-300x207.jpg

summary
       This cartoon shows democrats in a fictional world.  The point of this cartoon was to display how far fetch and unreal obamacare and raising the minimum is without harming the economy. Thats why the world is fictional, it is a perfect world. With success comes sacrifice, one can not create something without giving up something in return.

reaction
      The reason for picking this cartoon was because I found it humorous. Also the cartoon had lots of color which caught my eye, the cartoon also spoke of ridicule. I agree with what this cartoon and how obamacare and raising the minimum wage is a very bad idea for the economy.

connection
        the connection the artist made with obamacare reminds me of what mrs. ahrens said about a hot fudge sundae, republicans want to cut taxes but want all the benefits. Like eating the sundae but not wanting all the calories. The best way to handle the situation isn't one party or another but a compromise, in the gray area.

Christian Steffen- Political Cartoon Post- Democratic Convention

Democratic Convention and Obama

http://emmafarison.wikispaces.com/file/view/dnc-crasher-lk0815ad.jpg/145383975/300x226/dnc-crasher-lk0815ad.jpg

Summary- I think that the political cartoon is clearly a slam against Obama. It depicts Obama at the Democratic National Convention. Due to his low popularity, his endorsement could actually hurt the nominees if they are associated with Obama and therefore associated with the terrible economy and every other problem facing America right now. It shows that the public isn't content with how Obama has been running the country or perhaps, just the shape that the country is in. The cartoon is used to make people laugh but also to get a political point across. This cartoonist clearly doesn't approve of Obama and his goals. 

Reaction- I think that the cartoon is very funny. I agree with the cartoon as i do not think that Obama has helped this country more than he has hurt it. This may come from a strong value in the economy of the country, and how it hasn't improved since he has been in office. However it isn't that he hasn't helped the situation, its that he has actually hurt the situation by continued spending. The cartoon could have many potential reasons for depicting Obama as an undesirable character to be endorsed by, but by far it is probably his approval ratings in the polls and how low they are. 

Connection- I can connect this political cartoon to Congress and how they get re-elected. Congressional seats are up for re election every two years in the House of Representatives and every six years in the Senate. In almost every case, the presidents party loses seats in both the Senate and the House. This is fairly consistent. This could be because many people are not ever satisfied with how things are going and constantly want more than the presidency could give. Whatever the reason, many officials running for election or re- election do not necessarily want a recommendation from Obama because they don't want to be associated with Obama any more than they have to. This would be a concern for the Democrats, just like the Democratic Convention doesn't want Obama to be a part of it.