http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2014/0131/US-nuclear-forces-Drinking-and-cheating-What-the-Pentagon-wants-to-fix
Summary: Air Force officials have been goofing off lately in many ways and the government is starting to do something about it seeing as it's not acceptable. Major General Michael Carey went to Moscow not long ago, ending up drunk and talking about his role with nuclear weapons and how "he controls the war". Carey was relieved of his title although he is still in the military. Another Air Force soldier was gambling with over a thousand dollars worth of fake poker chips. The government is seeing that Air Force soldiers are getting out of control with alcohol, gambling, and drug abuse and they're finally starting to do something about it considering that many of these men and women know a lot about our nuclear powers.
Reaction: I can't even believe that this type of a thing would go on. I understand a grown man getting drunk every now and then, but doing it and then talking about the nuclear weapons he knows about is unacceptable. The gambling with fake poker chips makes no sense to me. It's illegal and irrelevant, there was no reason to do that and I'm still not really sure why he felt the need to do so. I think it's good that the government is realizing what the soldiers are doing and they're taking care of it.
Connection: I think this connects to any historical moment of someone giving their secrets away in war. It could connect to anything from the Watergate scandal where there wasn't enough safety and someone broke in, or even to someone saying something they shouldn't have during the Vietnam war. This situation could make people start to lose trust again in the government if they don't handle the way their soldiers have been acting lately.
Friday, January 31, 2014
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Jack Doyle Freedom 32 Obamacare 6
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2013/12/freedom-32-obamacare-6
Summary: Obamacare requires employers to provide abortion inducing drugs to employers. Not doing so will cost them a hundred dollars a day per employee. Many see this a threat to their beliefs, both religious and moral, that an unborn child has the same right to live as anyone else. In the 38 cases already tried by the supreme court, obamacare has been ruled unconstitutionally in all but 6. Many also oppose the "one size fits all" approach the bill takes to health insurance and the amount of government control on business.
Reaction: The democrats cannot steamroll religious beliefs for the "greater good". Requiring a pro-life employer to pay for abortion is like forcing a PETA member to go hunting, except this time you're killing a child, not an animal. The court rulings reflect my opinion as 32-6 is a pretty good record. I don't agree with any aspect of obamacare as many young healthy people don't see the need for healthcare, why should they be forced? It also takes away competition in the market, which, if you know anything about economics, keeps cost low and quality high. In order to eat the cost of the currently uninsured, insurance companies and healthcare providers have to jack up prices on those who were previously content with their healthcare.
Connection: As we learn about primaries and what not, it brings to mind that this was a key element to obama's platform. An element that has gone nowhere. We have a website with no security that does not work (i.e. thousands of SSN's up for grabs) and a policy that is ruled unconstitutional more often than not. Although as we learned, many promises are kept, this one has not been. This fight for universal healthcare has now lasted longer than our involvement in World War II and no one is seeing the "benefits" yet.
Summary: Obamacare requires employers to provide abortion inducing drugs to employers. Not doing so will cost them a hundred dollars a day per employee. Many see this a threat to their beliefs, both religious and moral, that an unborn child has the same right to live as anyone else. In the 38 cases already tried by the supreme court, obamacare has been ruled unconstitutionally in all but 6. Many also oppose the "one size fits all" approach the bill takes to health insurance and the amount of government control on business.
Reaction: The democrats cannot steamroll religious beliefs for the "greater good". Requiring a pro-life employer to pay for abortion is like forcing a PETA member to go hunting, except this time you're killing a child, not an animal. The court rulings reflect my opinion as 32-6 is a pretty good record. I don't agree with any aspect of obamacare as many young healthy people don't see the need for healthcare, why should they be forced? It also takes away competition in the market, which, if you know anything about economics, keeps cost low and quality high. In order to eat the cost of the currently uninsured, insurance companies and healthcare providers have to jack up prices on those who were previously content with their healthcare.
Connection: As we learn about primaries and what not, it brings to mind that this was a key element to obama's platform. An element that has gone nowhere. We have a website with no security that does not work (i.e. thousands of SSN's up for grabs) and a policy that is ruled unconstitutional more often than not. Although as we learned, many promises are kept, this one has not been. This fight for universal healthcare has now lasted longer than our involvement in World War II and no one is seeing the "benefits" yet.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
N.S.A Devises Radio Pathway into Computers - Haidyn Hank - National Security #1
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/nsa-effort-pries-open-computers-not-connected-to-internet.html?_r=0
Summary:
The N.S.A. has been implanting surveillance software in computers being sold primarily to China. They have placed this software in over 100,000 computers so far in an attempt to prevent cyberattacks and to be able to create cyberattacks. Many people involved, however, don't think that it is necessary for the United States to create cyberattacks and believe that it will only cause the U.S. more bad than good. The N.S.A. has been able to apply this software through spies, manufacturers, or unknowing users. The surveillance can be used by putting a small transceiver into a USB, which would then be put into the computer of an unsuspecting user. This transceiver would deliver the computer's information from up to eight miles away and take it to briefcase-sized computer, called "Nightstand." From Nightstand, the information would be sent directly to the N.S.A. This has cause issues between China and the U.S. because we believe that it is okay for us to spy and use surveillance equipment, but when China has done similar things to our software, we have protested, even banning a software company, called Huawei. The United States defends its surveillance, saying that they use it only for national security and not for "conducting it to steal intellectual property." For the Chinese, this argument is not working. They believe that economic advantage is a part of national security.
Reaction:
This is shocking to me because although I heard rumors about the United States using surveillance like this, I sort of didn't believe it because other people also told me that it wasn't true. It shocks me to know that we are spying on other countries and accessing information about their government and private things about their country, yet we don't think that they should be allowed to do the same thing to us. It seems a little unjust and unfair to do something to another country and then tell them they cannot do it to us. I don't exactly believe that other countries should be able to access our government documents either, though. I think, although it does provide some national security, the best thing to do would be for the United States to back off on the surveillance of other countries and see if they follow your actions, and if they don't, try and negotiate using the argument that you backed off and now they should too and try and work out some kind of treaty.
Connection:
One of the main goals of the United States government is to protect citizens and their rights. This includes the right to privacy. The United States is trying to protect this privacy by having surveillance on other countries, but isn't necessarily giving the other country the same rights. Although we are not obligated to extend our rights to them, I believe that we should meet them halfway and have both countries back off on the surveillance because then rights are being protected of both the United States citizens and the citizens targeted in other countries.
Summary:
The N.S.A. has been implanting surveillance software in computers being sold primarily to China. They have placed this software in over 100,000 computers so far in an attempt to prevent cyberattacks and to be able to create cyberattacks. Many people involved, however, don't think that it is necessary for the United States to create cyberattacks and believe that it will only cause the U.S. more bad than good. The N.S.A. has been able to apply this software through spies, manufacturers, or unknowing users. The surveillance can be used by putting a small transceiver into a USB, which would then be put into the computer of an unsuspecting user. This transceiver would deliver the computer's information from up to eight miles away and take it to briefcase-sized computer, called "Nightstand." From Nightstand, the information would be sent directly to the N.S.A. This has cause issues between China and the U.S. because we believe that it is okay for us to spy and use surveillance equipment, but when China has done similar things to our software, we have protested, even banning a software company, called Huawei. The United States defends its surveillance, saying that they use it only for national security and not for "conducting it to steal intellectual property." For the Chinese, this argument is not working. They believe that economic advantage is a part of national security.
Reaction:
This is shocking to me because although I heard rumors about the United States using surveillance like this, I sort of didn't believe it because other people also told me that it wasn't true. It shocks me to know that we are spying on other countries and accessing information about their government and private things about their country, yet we don't think that they should be allowed to do the same thing to us. It seems a little unjust and unfair to do something to another country and then tell them they cannot do it to us. I don't exactly believe that other countries should be able to access our government documents either, though. I think, although it does provide some national security, the best thing to do would be for the United States to back off on the surveillance of other countries and see if they follow your actions, and if they don't, try and negotiate using the argument that you backed off and now they should too and try and work out some kind of treaty.
Connection:
One of the main goals of the United States government is to protect citizens and their rights. This includes the right to privacy. The United States is trying to protect this privacy by having surveillance on other countries, but isn't necessarily giving the other country the same rights. Although we are not obligated to extend our rights to them, I believe that we should meet them halfway and have both countries back off on the surveillance because then rights are being protected of both the United States citizens and the citizens targeted in other countries.
Sarah Flynn (national security) Why We Should Care About the NSA Reforms
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nafees-syed/why-we-should-care-about-_b_4647474.html
Summary: people are worried about their privacy being invaded. People think its not right that the government can see your emails & phone calls & text messages. The people also have no idea what the government is doing with these things, are they storing them or just looking at them. It's a violating of the 4th amendment, people say they would rather have a private source have all their information. The government says what's the difference if they can take it any time they want anyways.
Reaction: I think it is a violation of the fourth amedmemt, it's not fair hat they can go through your private conversations and you would never even know things are being taken from you and possibly stored. It's unfair and not right that they can do that. It does seem silly to have a private source take the information & store it if the government can access it when the want anyways.mit shouldn't be done at all unless you have a warent.
Connection: the fourth amendment. It prohibits unreasonable search and seizures and requires a warent to be judicially sanctioned & supported by probable cause. You should have to have a warrent to get this information from people.
Summary: people are worried about their privacy being invaded. People think its not right that the government can see your emails & phone calls & text messages. The people also have no idea what the government is doing with these things, are they storing them or just looking at them. It's a violating of the 4th amendment, people say they would rather have a private source have all their information. The government says what's the difference if they can take it any time they want anyways.
Reaction: I think it is a violation of the fourth amedmemt, it's not fair hat they can go through your private conversations and you would never even know things are being taken from you and possibly stored. It's unfair and not right that they can do that. It does seem silly to have a private source take the information & store it if the government can access it when the want anyways.mit shouldn't be done at all unless you have a warent.
Connection: the fourth amendment. It prohibits unreasonable search and seizures and requires a warent to be judicially sanctioned & supported by probable cause. You should have to have a warrent to get this information from people.
Fawcett - Health Care and Environment - China's exports linked to western U.S. air pollution
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/20/health/pollution-china-pnas/index.html?hpt=he_bn3
Summary: Although outsourcing manufacturing jobs to China has led to a nationwide decrease in air pollution, airborne particles don't respect national borders. Due to the rapid growth of the Chinese economy, many facilities are stuck with outdated equipment, producing much more pollution than similar Western production plants. Although most air pollution both here and abroad is unrelated to consumer goods, it is ironic that we still reap the drawbacks of manufacturing.
Reaction: Although China's problems with smog are well known, I was surprised at the ease with which these pollutants can cross the Pacific. Apparently these chemicals don't 'rain out' well. It also bears keeping in mind the latent effects that all that smog will have on China's aging population.
Course Connection: Not all of our problems can be avoided by putting them somewhere else. As for policies that this concerns, I just don't know. Economics and global ecology are two of the most unpredictable disciplines of which I know, and I haven't the knowledge to make an informed judgement on our political course of action here.
Summary: Although outsourcing manufacturing jobs to China has led to a nationwide decrease in air pollution, airborne particles don't respect national borders. Due to the rapid growth of the Chinese economy, many facilities are stuck with outdated equipment, producing much more pollution than similar Western production plants. Although most air pollution both here and abroad is unrelated to consumer goods, it is ironic that we still reap the drawbacks of manufacturing.
Reaction: Although China's problems with smog are well known, I was surprised at the ease with which these pollutants can cross the Pacific. Apparently these chemicals don't 'rain out' well. It also bears keeping in mind the latent effects that all that smog will have on China's aging population.
Course Connection: Not all of our problems can be avoided by putting them somewhere else. As for policies that this concerns, I just don't know. Economics and global ecology are two of the most unpredictable disciplines of which I know, and I haven't the knowledge to make an informed judgement on our political course of action here.
David Niska- National Security:The Swelling of the Pentagon
Summary: The defense budgets spent on acquisition of military defense systems and armed forces grew steadily through the late-1940s, 1950s, and the 1960s to the point that the U.S. and the USSR each had so many weapons that the they could completely destroy each other. This was a position often referred to as "mutual assured destruction" (MAD). Many economists believed that U.S. strength prevented conflict with the communist eastern block while other economists linked the Pentagon defense spending to merely expanding the profits of private industry. The U.S. position as a world military power and the U.S. willingness to invest in even more weapons created an economic pressure on the Soviet Block that eventually led to the collapse of Eastern Europe. After the collapse of powerful eastern block nations, the US concerns about an attack from those countries was greatly reduced.
Reaction: The commitment and capabilities of the U.S. to continue funding a strong military eventually destroyed the adversary without having to fire a single shot or the loss of life. Strength provides a powerful and persuasive platform from which to set and conduct national policy and function as the world power.
Connection: My connection is back to the importance of the party platform and the candidates' chances for a successful election. For example "When a peace plank failed to be adopted by the 1968 Democratic national convention, it was clear that Vice President Hubert Humphrey would defeat antiwar candidate Eugene McCarthy."pg278. Spending on defense has always been controversial because the intended objective is ultimately the destruction of life and property as an expense for the freedoms Americans enjoy.
Reaction: The commitment and capabilities of the U.S. to continue funding a strong military eventually destroyed the adversary without having to fire a single shot or the loss of life. Strength provides a powerful and persuasive platform from which to set and conduct national policy and function as the world power.
Connection: My connection is back to the importance of the party platform and the candidates' chances for a successful election. For example "When a peace plank failed to be adopted by the 1968 Democratic national convention, it was clear that Vice President Hubert Humphrey would defeat antiwar candidate Eugene McCarthy."pg278. Spending on defense has always been controversial because the intended objective is ultimately the destruction of life and property as an expense for the freedoms Americans enjoy.
Carter brown The Obamacare we deserve Social welfare 1
The Obamacare We Deserve
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/opinion/moore-the-obamacare-we-deserve.html?_r=0
Summary:
This article talks about Obamacare and just explains the pros and cons of it. It starts out by stating that Obamacare is not the greatest thing in the world and far from it. It will be costing Americans overall $100 billion to private insurance, which means that it is forcing us all to be spending huge amounts of money to insurance. But it goes on to show that it will have some pros because it will cut some's premium in half, however if a family gets an extremely ill family member than it could also cost them a lot more than before it was implemented. So overall it can help or hurt depending on the situation.
Reaction:
I think that Obamacare should not have been implemented because it is forcing some to pay more than when before they could have been saving a lot of money. However it is good at the core because I believe that we need a universal health care that provides more for all citizens, but this is not the way to go, it is sending way to much money to the private insurance companies, more than needed.
Correlation:
This reminds me of how the federal government does categorical grants in order to get states to do what it wants. In the article it said that states that don't comply with some aspects of Obamacare will be losing up to 20 billion a year, which is huge. That amount of money will make the states do whatever the federal government wants, which is another way that the federal government is gaining power of the states.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/opinion/moore-the-obamacare-we-deserve.html?_r=0
Summary:
This article talks about Obamacare and just explains the pros and cons of it. It starts out by stating that Obamacare is not the greatest thing in the world and far from it. It will be costing Americans overall $100 billion to private insurance, which means that it is forcing us all to be spending huge amounts of money to insurance. But it goes on to show that it will have some pros because it will cut some's premium in half, however if a family gets an extremely ill family member than it could also cost them a lot more than before it was implemented. So overall it can help or hurt depending on the situation.
Reaction:
I think that Obamacare should not have been implemented because it is forcing some to pay more than when before they could have been saving a lot of money. However it is good at the core because I believe that we need a universal health care that provides more for all citizens, but this is not the way to go, it is sending way to much money to the private insurance companies, more than needed.
Correlation:
This reminds me of how the federal government does categorical grants in order to get states to do what it wants. In the article it said that states that don't comply with some aspects of Obamacare will be losing up to 20 billion a year, which is huge. That amount of money will make the states do whatever the federal government wants, which is another way that the federal government is gaining power of the states.
Kylee Cangas - A Note on the Political Economy of Populism
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/22/a-note-on-the-political-economy-of-populism/
Summary- This article is opinion based with facts that gives a different view on possible topics of the State of the Union and whether or not they are useful. The article states that it is believed that President Obama will be talking a lot about inequality in incomes and such. Some say this is irrelevant and we need to work on creating more jobs. The writer supports him in speaking about inequality saying that creating jobs and inequality are not totally separate. He also says that there has been a "deficit obsession" which has been used as an excuse to crush things such as welfare. The author states that helping families in need is important however and should not be ignored, and that helping them could in fact help the inequality issue. He believes that solving inequality problems is a way to improve the state of the country.
Reaction- I do not totally understand the issue but I do think inequality is an important issue. I think we should do all we can to help those in need because getting them back on their feet in turn improves the economy buy putting more buyers out there. It is important to help out and even though there is a debt problem in the country we cannot forget about those in need. Helping them could help us get out of debt going along with the welfare topic. Another point to connect could be the raising of minimum wage to help inequality.
Connection- This somewhat connects to the framers idea that everyone should have the right to "the pursuit of happiness" and giving everybody equal opportunities. We must decrease inequality in the country to help maintain this and give everyone opportunity if that means keeping welfare.
Summary- This article is opinion based with facts that gives a different view on possible topics of the State of the Union and whether or not they are useful. The article states that it is believed that President Obama will be talking a lot about inequality in incomes and such. Some say this is irrelevant and we need to work on creating more jobs. The writer supports him in speaking about inequality saying that creating jobs and inequality are not totally separate. He also says that there has been a "deficit obsession" which has been used as an excuse to crush things such as welfare. The author states that helping families in need is important however and should not be ignored, and that helping them could in fact help the inequality issue. He believes that solving inequality problems is a way to improve the state of the country.
Reaction- I do not totally understand the issue but I do think inequality is an important issue. I think we should do all we can to help those in need because getting them back on their feet in turn improves the economy buy putting more buyers out there. It is important to help out and even though there is a debt problem in the country we cannot forget about those in need. Helping them could help us get out of debt going along with the welfare topic. Another point to connect could be the raising of minimum wage to help inequality.
Connection- This somewhat connects to the framers idea that everyone should have the right to "the pursuit of happiness" and giving everybody equal opportunities. We must decrease inequality in the country to help maintain this and give everyone opportunity if that means keeping welfare.
Sydney Wientjes; Economics: "New Study Says Divorce Rates Will Increase As Economy Recovers"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/28/divorce-rates_n_4682692.html?utm_hp_ref=economy
Summary: This article relays a positive correlation discovered between a recuperating economy and rising divorce rates. It has been discovered time after time during every upward spike in the US economy that divorce rates tend to climb. However, this is not because people are becoming more satisfied with their marriages--it occurs because couples can finally afford the hefty price tags attached to getting a divorce. It is later explained that fluctuating divorce rates in regards to the economy may be reflecting the timing of divorce rather than the odds of divorce. Studies have been conducted tracing divorce rates all the way back to the Great Depression, displaying extremely similar trends to the last economic decline in the US.
Reaction: Upon discovering this article, I was a bit skeptical that these two topics could relate to one another. However, after reading the information, I realized that it made quite a bit of sense when I thought about it. I also found it interesting (if not a bit comical) that the striking correlation between divorce rates and the economy was regarded as a "silver lining" of the economic recession of 2007, when it was later discovered that the high price of divorce was difficult for American couples to pay off during tough economic times.
Connection: This information can be connected to what we have covered about the media spinning information in order to convey the ideas they want the public to hear. There was an entire op-ed article explaining how the decline in divorce rates was the "silver lining" to the economic recession of 2007. This clearly demonstrates that not every article put out in the media should be trusted simply because it is written by an educated person or a "reliable" source.
Summary: This article relays a positive correlation discovered between a recuperating economy and rising divorce rates. It has been discovered time after time during every upward spike in the US economy that divorce rates tend to climb. However, this is not because people are becoming more satisfied with their marriages--it occurs because couples can finally afford the hefty price tags attached to getting a divorce. It is later explained that fluctuating divorce rates in regards to the economy may be reflecting the timing of divorce rather than the odds of divorce. Studies have been conducted tracing divorce rates all the way back to the Great Depression, displaying extremely similar trends to the last economic decline in the US.
Reaction: Upon discovering this article, I was a bit skeptical that these two topics could relate to one another. However, after reading the information, I realized that it made quite a bit of sense when I thought about it. I also found it interesting (if not a bit comical) that the striking correlation between divorce rates and the economy was regarded as a "silver lining" of the economic recession of 2007, when it was later discovered that the high price of divorce was difficult for American couples to pay off during tough economic times.
Connection: This information can be connected to what we have covered about the media spinning information in order to convey the ideas they want the public to hear. There was an entire op-ed article explaining how the decline in divorce rates was the "silver lining" to the economic recession of 2007. This clearly demonstrates that not every article put out in the media should be trusted simply because it is written by an educated person or a "reliable" source.
Blake Bodenschatz social welfare
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/us/02welfare.html?ref=welfareus&_r=0
Summary: Even though unemployment was getting worst 18 states lowered the their social welfare funding. Michigan cut their welfare funding 13% and Rhode Island cut theirs by 17%. Out of the twelve states that were tops in unemployment eight of them either kept the same amount or dropped different amounts of the people on the temporary assistance for needy families, which is the main portion of the welfare funding. This program was mainly for single mothers that need the money to support their children. Some critics claim that the pressure to cut welfare rolls has kept many people that need it to not sign up for it. For some states they have risen the percentage of food stamps and have been able to lower the amount of people on welfare. In Georgia, they were able to drop their welfare by 11% and grew the food stamps program by 17%.
Reaction: It surprises me that even though that their citizens are going through hard times and can not find a job that the states are not helping them provide for their families. Even though some people are on welfare because they do not even try to find a job, there are many people that search for jobs constantly and are not getting hired, then these people should be able to be on welfare because they can't get a job and some need to provide for their families.
Connection: During the Great Depression many people were searching for any jobs that they could get to provide for their family. Many were not able to provide for their children and had to get rid of them, which is how some families right now are because the parents can no longer provide for their children. What is similar between these two is that both people would search for anyway to provide for their families, and now they try to get on welfare in order to be able to help their kids grow up.
Summary: Even though unemployment was getting worst 18 states lowered the their social welfare funding. Michigan cut their welfare funding 13% and Rhode Island cut theirs by 17%. Out of the twelve states that were tops in unemployment eight of them either kept the same amount or dropped different amounts of the people on the temporary assistance for needy families, which is the main portion of the welfare funding. This program was mainly for single mothers that need the money to support their children. Some critics claim that the pressure to cut welfare rolls has kept many people that need it to not sign up for it. For some states they have risen the percentage of food stamps and have been able to lower the amount of people on welfare. In Georgia, they were able to drop their welfare by 11% and grew the food stamps program by 17%.
Reaction: It surprises me that even though that their citizens are going through hard times and can not find a job that the states are not helping them provide for their families. Even though some people are on welfare because they do not even try to find a job, there are many people that search for jobs constantly and are not getting hired, then these people should be able to be on welfare because they can't get a job and some need to provide for their families.
Connection: During the Great Depression many people were searching for any jobs that they could get to provide for their family. Many were not able to provide for their children and had to get rid of them, which is how some families right now are because the parents can no longer provide for their children. What is similar between these two is that both people would search for anyway to provide for their families, and now they try to get on welfare in order to be able to help their kids grow up.
Hunter Williams U.S Economy 2: State of the US economy, strongest since recession
Read More At http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/state-of-the-us-economy-strongest-since-recession/2014/01/28/d8000a5a-8850-11e3-a760-a86415d0944d_story.html
Summary:
" Employers are hiring. Home prices, sales and construction have surged. Corporate profits and stocks have hit records. And consumers have picked up their spending." Even though our national debt is not completely "paid off", the nation has created a stable foundation for what could be enough time to fix national economic problems. By the middle of 2014, 8.7 million jobs are to be replenished. The economy is also expected to grow by 3% this year. Sadly, much of the labor force goes without pay increase. Millions have not been able to find occupations and have had to seek for lower paying unexpected careers. In 2008, 25% of Americans felt as if they were middle class Americans, today that percentage has risen 15%, 40% of Americans. Employers have added 2.1 million jobs over the last 3 years. Every job gives Americans the opportunity to spend money, keeping product sales high. Total sales of homes last year in America was $5.09 million dollars, gains in home purchases are expected to happen in 2014. 15.6 million autos were bought last year alone. Low interest rates and low inflation has kept food and clothes affordable. The Dow Jones has increased 28% higher. America has finally created a stable economic foundation that could fix economic problems for the upcoming years.
Reaction:
I recently made a blog on the harden ships of our economy. Since then, it seems as if the economy will finally flourish, thanks to employers, home sales, consumers, etc. I am obviously very happy with the turnaround of the American economy. These are the building blocks to a strong, healthy economy. I have traveled deep into the economy over the past six years. And now I am excited to study the economy for the next six years.
Connection: An unequal distribution of wealth can shift an economy very quickly. With massive economic inequality with the Elitist and their corporations and the unimpressive wealth of the middle class, makes such a turnaround so astonishing. I am interested in the policies that will be installed into our daily lives in efforts to improve the economy, and the steps that the next presidents will take to fix the problems that are said to be removed for a solid turnaround in the economy.
Summary:
" Employers are hiring. Home prices, sales and construction have surged. Corporate profits and stocks have hit records. And consumers have picked up their spending." Even though our national debt is not completely "paid off", the nation has created a stable foundation for what could be enough time to fix national economic problems. By the middle of 2014, 8.7 million jobs are to be replenished. The economy is also expected to grow by 3% this year. Sadly, much of the labor force goes without pay increase. Millions have not been able to find occupations and have had to seek for lower paying unexpected careers. In 2008, 25% of Americans felt as if they were middle class Americans, today that percentage has risen 15%, 40% of Americans. Employers have added 2.1 million jobs over the last 3 years. Every job gives Americans the opportunity to spend money, keeping product sales high. Total sales of homes last year in America was $5.09 million dollars, gains in home purchases are expected to happen in 2014. 15.6 million autos were bought last year alone. Low interest rates and low inflation has kept food and clothes affordable. The Dow Jones has increased 28% higher. America has finally created a stable economic foundation that could fix economic problems for the upcoming years.
Reaction:
I recently made a blog on the harden ships of our economy. Since then, it seems as if the economy will finally flourish, thanks to employers, home sales, consumers, etc. I am obviously very happy with the turnaround of the American economy. These are the building blocks to a strong, healthy economy. I have traveled deep into the economy over the past six years. And now I am excited to study the economy for the next six years.
Connection: An unequal distribution of wealth can shift an economy very quickly. With massive economic inequality with the Elitist and their corporations and the unimpressive wealth of the middle class, makes such a turnaround so astonishing. I am interested in the policies that will be installed into our daily lives in efforts to improve the economy, and the steps that the next presidents will take to fix the problems that are said to be removed for a solid turnaround in the economy.
Austin Dreher - Company Struggles to Keep U.S. in Uranium Enrichment Game - Environment
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/business/energy-environment/company-struggles-to-keep-us-in-the-uranium-enrichment-game.html?ref=earth
Summary: The last American owned uranium enrichment company is going bankrupt, and is being replaced by a European company: Urenco. The new company is doing fairly well, despite the recent Fukushima Daiichi disaster in Japan. Meanwhile, another American company is asking for a $2 billion dollar loan, insisting that its uranium enrichment program is soon to be operational.
Reaction: I find it strange that this European company is thriving, even though the disaster in Japan happened only three years ago. I also worry about the effects that uranium enrichment could have on the environment. When uranium is enriched, it produces wastes, which are then disposed of in less than desirable ways. I also worry about those other countries that have the ability to enrich uranium, and what they may do with it.
Connection: The way that these enrichment plants are kept secret relate to how the media can affect anything in politics. If the media were able to see, and then publish works on the interior of these plants, who knows what other countries could possibly do with that information?
Summary: The last American owned uranium enrichment company is going bankrupt, and is being replaced by a European company: Urenco. The new company is doing fairly well, despite the recent Fukushima Daiichi disaster in Japan. Meanwhile, another American company is asking for a $2 billion dollar loan, insisting that its uranium enrichment program is soon to be operational.
Reaction: I find it strange that this European company is thriving, even though the disaster in Japan happened only three years ago. I also worry about the effects that uranium enrichment could have on the environment. When uranium is enriched, it produces wastes, which are then disposed of in less than desirable ways. I also worry about those other countries that have the ability to enrich uranium, and what they may do with it.
Connection: The way that these enrichment plants are kept secret relate to how the media can affect anything in politics. If the media were able to see, and then publish works on the interior of these plants, who knows what other countries could possibly do with that information?
Jason Erbst- Health Care and Environment
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/healthcarecheckup/2014/01/28/obamacare-enrollment-continues-to-climb/
Summary: This article shows the pros and cons of the Affordable Health Care Act. Shining light to the newly developed website. There has been a spike in the number of people who are using the new insurance website. Though, many are finding that the insurance plans they have be receiving are not as optimal as they would have liked. With the penalty of being uninsured quickly approaching many people are getting help fast. This article explains that the goal of this act was to insure the uninsured, this goal continues to be met.
Reaction: I believe that this article is a pleasant surprise. Many of today's newspapers and news shows, shed a bad light on this act. This article shows an unbiased view, of how this act is good, and actually accomplishing what it set out to do. Since, the website had problems, many people thought that this act would not succeed. This article proves them wrong.
Connection: a friend of mine has had medical problems. With having two transplants, he and his family have had major medical bills. His first transplant his family was not insured. They had to come up with the money through fundraiser and grants. If this act would have been around, his family would not have been in as much debt.
Summary: This article shows the pros and cons of the Affordable Health Care Act. Shining light to the newly developed website. There has been a spike in the number of people who are using the new insurance website. Though, many are finding that the insurance plans they have be receiving are not as optimal as they would have liked. With the penalty of being uninsured quickly approaching many people are getting help fast. This article explains that the goal of this act was to insure the uninsured, this goal continues to be met.
Reaction: I believe that this article is a pleasant surprise. Many of today's newspapers and news shows, shed a bad light on this act. This article shows an unbiased view, of how this act is good, and actually accomplishing what it set out to do. Since, the website had problems, many people thought that this act would not succeed. This article proves them wrong.
Connection: a friend of mine has had medical problems. With having two transplants, he and his family have had major medical bills. His first transplant his family was not insured. They had to come up with the money through fundraiser and grants. If this act would have been around, his family would not have been in as much debt.
Brianna Klabunde - Gov’t, Internet companies reach deal on disclosure - National Security
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/govt-internet-companies-reach-deal-on-disclosure/2014/01/28/92e6fae8-87f4-11e3-a760-a86415d0944d_story.html
Summary: Recently an agreement between the government and companies such as Facebook and Apple was reached. It specified just how much the companies can release about what the information they collect from their customers is used for. Apple, as wells as heads of other companies, comments on the fact that they are glad to finally let their customers further understand the government's intentions. They feel as if it is not right to keep citizens in the dark. Although, the information is still regulated.
Reaction: I understand to an extent why some information is top secret. The hope of keeping our nation safe is understandably a priority. It is obviously unheard of to hear the question, "but just how far will they go?". Both sides of the argument remain valid. Pertaining to this specific circumstance, I think it is good that companies are allowed to share more information with their customers. Exercising our basic freedoms, such as this one, is just another way that democracy is incorporated into out political system.
Connection: In class we learned about the reporter during the Vietnam war who released the battle plan to the public. He obviously ruined the attack by making it public. Situations like this make me understand why the government chooses to keep some intentions a secret. It could be a threat to our national security. As mentioned before, though, there is a thin line between protecting our nation and maintaining our rights. I think we need to determine just where that line falls.
Summary: Recently an agreement between the government and companies such as Facebook and Apple was reached. It specified just how much the companies can release about what the information they collect from their customers is used for. Apple, as wells as heads of other companies, comments on the fact that they are glad to finally let their customers further understand the government's intentions. They feel as if it is not right to keep citizens in the dark. Although, the information is still regulated.
Reaction: I understand to an extent why some information is top secret. The hope of keeping our nation safe is understandably a priority. It is obviously unheard of to hear the question, "but just how far will they go?". Both sides of the argument remain valid. Pertaining to this specific circumstance, I think it is good that companies are allowed to share more information with their customers. Exercising our basic freedoms, such as this one, is just another way that democracy is incorporated into out political system.
Connection: In class we learned about the reporter during the Vietnam war who released the battle plan to the public. He obviously ruined the attack by making it public. Situations like this make me understand why the government chooses to keep some intentions a secret. It could be a threat to our national security. As mentioned before, though, there is a thin line between protecting our nation and maintaining our rights. I think we need to determine just where that line falls.
Emma Walraven-Economics
U.S. Economic Data Keeps Upward Course
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/business/us-economic-signals-remain-largely-encouraging.html?ref=unitedstateseconomy&_r=0
Summary: The economy has been looking up the past few years. The only thing casting a shadow on it is the decline in the purchasing of long-lasting manufactured goods over the past few months. In November, there was a 2.6% increase. However, there was a 4.3% decrease last month due to weak demand for transportation equipment, primary metals, fabricated metal products, computers, and capital goods. Other than that, everything else has been looking up. House prices have increased up to 13.7%, the largest increase since February 2006. The peoples' optimism about the economy rose to 80.7 this month.
Reaction: I think it's good that the economy is getting better. I had no idea that manufactured goods were decreasing. I personally don't understand why there is low demand for transportation and computers/electronic products. If anything, I would have thought it would increase. The increase in housing is a very good thing and I think as long as the people's optimism is up, we have a chance of getting better.
Connection: This article was difficult to connect. I believe this can be related to the Locke theory that one of the government's main purposes is to protect it's citizens and they do this through doing as much as they can to improve housing percentages so the people have property and homes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/business/us-economic-signals-remain-largely-encouraging.html?ref=unitedstateseconomy&_r=0
Summary: The economy has been looking up the past few years. The only thing casting a shadow on it is the decline in the purchasing of long-lasting manufactured goods over the past few months. In November, there was a 2.6% increase. However, there was a 4.3% decrease last month due to weak demand for transportation equipment, primary metals, fabricated metal products, computers, and capital goods. Other than that, everything else has been looking up. House prices have increased up to 13.7%, the largest increase since February 2006. The peoples' optimism about the economy rose to 80.7 this month.
Reaction: I think it's good that the economy is getting better. I had no idea that manufactured goods were decreasing. I personally don't understand why there is low demand for transportation and computers/electronic products. If anything, I would have thought it would increase. The increase in housing is a very good thing and I think as long as the people's optimism is up, we have a chance of getting better.
Connection: This article was difficult to connect. I believe this can be related to the Locke theory that one of the government's main purposes is to protect it's citizens and they do this through doing as much as they can to improve housing percentages so the people have property and homes.
Olivia Solbrig - National Security
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-disagrees-with-watchdog-groups-conclusion-that-nsa-phone-program-is-illegal/2014/01/23/7a945564-8464-11e3-8099-9181471f7aaf_story.html
Obama disagrees with watchdog group’s conclusion that NSA phone program is illegal:
Summary: Obama comes out saying that the NSA phone monitoring system isn't illegal. The whole Whitehouse administration agreed that it wasn't against the law. Although these people are behind it, Congress has not made a decision yet regarding whether or not they are ending the program. They are looking for ways to keep monitoring yet to have a smaller database, because this is getting too expensive. A recent report highlighted the fact that there aren't strict safety guidelines for them to search the phone records. It says that the NSA can monitor numbers called and call length, but not what the people are saying.
Reaction: I think that they definitely need to have more regulation over the safety regulations around searching the phone records. If they are going to be keeping so many records and invading the privacy of the American people, they should at least have strict regulations on what is done with the information after it is recorded and who can access it. If there isn't strict regulations and laws, how do we as a people know who could be accessing our phone and internet information? I also believe that if the program is costing so much money, and if it isn't having any impact or being helpful to the country, why put so much money into the program? I think that congress should see this and at least cut back on the program if not end it entirely.
Connection: This connects with what we have been learning about the powers of the Supreme Court and the judicial branch of the government. The Supreme Court is looking into this NSA program and has been debating whether or not it goes against the peoples privacy and the Constitution. The current argument they are using to say it is legal is section 215 of the US Patriot Act. This all falls under the right of the Judicial branch to interpret the law.
Monday, January 27, 2014
Christian Steffen- National Security
Drone combat missions may be scaled back eventually, Air Force chief says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/drone-combat-missions-may-be-scaled-back-eventually-air-force-chief-says/2013/11/13/470deda4-4c97-11e3-b692-e722f1795169_story.html
Summary: The article touches on the important topic of drones and their usage and expansion. According to the article, in the near future the drones that have become a center piece of American national defense are going to be scaled down. This means that the production of them will lessen and their usage will not expand but rather get smaller. It is said in this article that the usage of drones for surveillance must continue in certain areas stronger than others. These include unarmed surveillance devices to be flown over Asia. It is called the Global Hawk and it is to be based in Japan for Asian surveillance. However, the unmanned predator and reaper drones are to be scaled back sufficiently. Apparently, the use of these drones just isn't practical in new areas where a strong U.S presence is needed, like Asia. Added to that, these drones cannot be flown in high conflict areas with ground to air defenses or air support as these drones are not meant to face air resistance or air warfare.
Reaction: The Air Force chief and all of the officials who believe that armed drones are not relevant to the current situation and are too expensive do offer valid points. The armed predator and reaper drones take numerous personnel to operate and large amounts of money to buy and keep up. This may put a strain on the defense budget. However, i do not agree with them. There is no denying that drones may not operate well in certain areas, such as the pacific and ares like that, however that is not where they need to be used. The middle east must continue to be monitored well. This monitoring is best done through drones, particularly armed drones. The missions conducted by them are extremely important to U.S security. If we must increase our defense budget in order to operate more drones, then I'm all for it.
Connection: I can connect the drone situation in America with the Articles of Confederation. Since the articles of confederation couldn't collect taxes to maintain a national defense many arose. America under the articles did win the war but it couldn't support itself for much longer. One of the reasons this was the case was a weak military. When shays rebellion took place and the government couldn't raise the funds to provide the military strength to defeat the rebels, its weaknesses were shown. Similarly, today if America was not seen as a country with great military strength, something similar to shays rebellion could happen in terms of being attacked by another country. This is why defense spending is so important, and likewise the need for drones to monitor the world and protect the country.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/drone-combat-missions-may-be-scaled-back-eventually-air-force-chief-says/2013/11/13/470deda4-4c97-11e3-b692-e722f1795169_story.html
Summary: The article touches on the important topic of drones and their usage and expansion. According to the article, in the near future the drones that have become a center piece of American national defense are going to be scaled down. This means that the production of them will lessen and their usage will not expand but rather get smaller. It is said in this article that the usage of drones for surveillance must continue in certain areas stronger than others. These include unarmed surveillance devices to be flown over Asia. It is called the Global Hawk and it is to be based in Japan for Asian surveillance. However, the unmanned predator and reaper drones are to be scaled back sufficiently. Apparently, the use of these drones just isn't practical in new areas where a strong U.S presence is needed, like Asia. Added to that, these drones cannot be flown in high conflict areas with ground to air defenses or air support as these drones are not meant to face air resistance or air warfare.
Reaction: The Air Force chief and all of the officials who believe that armed drones are not relevant to the current situation and are too expensive do offer valid points. The armed predator and reaper drones take numerous personnel to operate and large amounts of money to buy and keep up. This may put a strain on the defense budget. However, i do not agree with them. There is no denying that drones may not operate well in certain areas, such as the pacific and ares like that, however that is not where they need to be used. The middle east must continue to be monitored well. This monitoring is best done through drones, particularly armed drones. The missions conducted by them are extremely important to U.S security. If we must increase our defense budget in order to operate more drones, then I'm all for it.
Connection: I can connect the drone situation in America with the Articles of Confederation. Since the articles of confederation couldn't collect taxes to maintain a national defense many arose. America under the articles did win the war but it couldn't support itself for much longer. One of the reasons this was the case was a weak military. When shays rebellion took place and the government couldn't raise the funds to provide the military strength to defeat the rebels, its weaknesses were shown. Similarly, today if America was not seen as a country with great military strength, something similar to shays rebellion could happen in terms of being attacked by another country. This is why defense spending is so important, and likewise the need for drones to monitor the world and protect the country.
Nick Steinke econ minimum wage
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/business/proposal-to-raise-tip-wages-resisted.html?_r=0
Summary
There is a large discussion between business groups and the federal government to raise the federal minimum wage. Obama administration and other democrats have pushed for the increase in minimum wage from 7.25 to 10.10 an hour. This creates many problems for a variety of groups. Waiters have recieved wages of 2.13 since 1991 and large business groups argue that with increased wages and tips for waiters, there will be increased menu items and fewer waiters to wait on them.
Reaction
I completely disagree with th push for increase in minimum wage. Just because one makes more does not mean things are more affordable. With businesses having to pay employees more money per hour, to keep the same profit line they will have to raise their prices on goods or services. This process only does one thing which is it creates inflation, making the dollar worth less and less.
Connection
I felt the connection was the hardest part of this article. With interest groups pushing for increase in minimum wage the best way to connect this would be with hyperpluralism. Many interest groups and people making minimum wage are trying to convince the government that it is too hard to live off of minimum wage. The situtation also shows pluralism because the government has not made and rational decisions and is also not crippled by the people.
Summary
There is a large discussion between business groups and the federal government to raise the federal minimum wage. Obama administration and other democrats have pushed for the increase in minimum wage from 7.25 to 10.10 an hour. This creates many problems for a variety of groups. Waiters have recieved wages of 2.13 since 1991 and large business groups argue that with increased wages and tips for waiters, there will be increased menu items and fewer waiters to wait on them.
Reaction
I completely disagree with th push for increase in minimum wage. Just because one makes more does not mean things are more affordable. With businesses having to pay employees more money per hour, to keep the same profit line they will have to raise their prices on goods or services. This process only does one thing which is it creates inflation, making the dollar worth less and less.
Connection
I felt the connection was the hardest part of this article. With interest groups pushing for increase in minimum wage the best way to connect this would be with hyperpluralism. Many interest groups and people making minimum wage are trying to convince the government that it is too hard to live off of minimum wage. The situtation also shows pluralism because the government has not made and rational decisions and is also not crippled by the people.
Liz Flanagan- A Mall Shooting Rips Away Our Collective Security Blanket
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-mall-shooting-rips-away-our-collective-security-blanket/2014/01/27/d63b9a38-879f-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html?wprss=rss_local&_monetaClick=eyJ3aWRnZXRfaW5zdGFuY2VfaWQiOiJkODk4ZmQ3Ny05M2NlLTQ4Y2QtYTY5Yy1mMDRkZDgzMDUzOTIiLCJjb250YWluZXJfaWQiOiJyZXZfYWRfNyIsImVsZW1lbnRfcG9zaXRpb24iOiIxIiwibGlua19pZCI6ImU2NmRiNjA4LTg3YzEtMTFlMy1hM2NhLTIyMDAwYTFjODhlOCIsImFkX2lkIjoiZTZhYmFiNDgtODdjMS0xMWUzLWEzY2EtMjIwMDBhMWM4OGU4IiwiY2xpY2tfaWQiOiJmMDc5YzgwOS1kMWNiLTQwOTgtOTliNC1lZjVmYzZjNGNmZDIiLCJ3YXBvX3Zpc19pZCI6IjUxOWUzYzk3LWI4NDMtNDNmMi04MDEzLWY0MWZjNjk1MjRmZCIsIndhcG9fc2Vzc19pZCI6bnVsbCwid2Fwb19sb2dpbl9pZCI6bnVsbCwicHViaWQiOiJ3cCJ9
Summary: A recent shooting at a Columbia, Maryland mall has provided further insight into the social factors of not just shopping centers but shootings as a whole. Malls have always been an "American security blanket" of sorts. They are safe, predictable, stable environments that are apart of every society. However, this and other recent shootings at common public places has shaken our worries. Shootings now are so commonplace that we tend to ignore them when in reality, they are becoming a greater and greater threat to our existence everyday. They are so unpredictable that preventing them is nearly impossible. Our society is beginning to expect and prepare for the worst; we are essentially "breeding" a society of paranoid yet trained kids who thinks it is perfectly normal to expect violence anywhere.
Reaction: This article seemed to be a very typical, cut and dried, post-shooting analysis. It did, however, provide and interesting insight into how shootings have shaped our society and the way we view and tolerate violence. I definitely think it's important that we prepare our children the way we do because as it has been said before, shootings can happen anywhere, anytime. Often times when we hear about an act of violence, we shrug it off. Maybe we make a few comments about gun control or "how long will it take our society to realize that violence is not the answer?" Overall, they have almost become glamorized situations, only turning heads for a few moments to catch the snippets of information that the news provides. Shootings are becoming a more dominant threat and should be taken more seriously.
Connection: Our readings this unit have focused on political parties and the length campaigners must go to to appeal to voters. After the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut last year, gun control was an extremely dominant and pressing issue our government had to deal with. Predictions were made that in the next presidential election, gun control may be the key to securing a victory for a candidate. Just as the readings stated, candidates must choose their points of support carefully in order to appeal to voters and hopefully win an election for themselves while focusing on the future and good of America.
Summary: A recent shooting at a Columbia, Maryland mall has provided further insight into the social factors of not just shopping centers but shootings as a whole. Malls have always been an "American security blanket" of sorts. They are safe, predictable, stable environments that are apart of every society. However, this and other recent shootings at common public places has shaken our worries. Shootings now are so commonplace that we tend to ignore them when in reality, they are becoming a greater and greater threat to our existence everyday. They are so unpredictable that preventing them is nearly impossible. Our society is beginning to expect and prepare for the worst; we are essentially "breeding" a society of paranoid yet trained kids who thinks it is perfectly normal to expect violence anywhere.
Reaction: This article seemed to be a very typical, cut and dried, post-shooting analysis. It did, however, provide and interesting insight into how shootings have shaped our society and the way we view and tolerate violence. I definitely think it's important that we prepare our children the way we do because as it has been said before, shootings can happen anywhere, anytime. Often times when we hear about an act of violence, we shrug it off. Maybe we make a few comments about gun control or "how long will it take our society to realize that violence is not the answer?" Overall, they have almost become glamorized situations, only turning heads for a few moments to catch the snippets of information that the news provides. Shootings are becoming a more dominant threat and should be taken more seriously.
Connection: Our readings this unit have focused on political parties and the length campaigners must go to to appeal to voters. After the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut last year, gun control was an extremely dominant and pressing issue our government had to deal with. Predictions were made that in the next presidential election, gun control may be the key to securing a victory for a candidate. Just as the readings stated, candidates must choose their points of support carefully in order to appeal to voters and hopefully win an election for themselves while focusing on the future and good of America.
Jenn Campbell Economics: In Housing, Big Is Back (Not Counting the Extras)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/business/in-housing-big-is-back-not-counting-the-extras.html?ref=unitedstateseconomy
Summary:
The number of houses sold for the price of 750,000 to 1 million dropped by 35.5 percent from July 2007 to July 2008, but by July 2013 the number of houses sold for more than 1 million dollars went up 46.6 percent from July 2012. "The housing market is being driven up by the move-up buyer, the luxury buyer,", said by Brad Hunter, the chief economist and director of consulting at Metrostudy, housing market information provider. What he is saying is the housing market is being revitalized by the increase in size for luxury houses, the tacked on costs of more bedrooms and bigger kitchens is fueling the increase in luxury housing market profits. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, affluent buyers are buying more real estate, applications for home loans of 625,000 to 729,000 went up 56.7 percent from August 2012 to 2013, and applications for more than 729,000 went up 41 percent, but the bad news is smaller, cheaper home applications fell .6 percent. The problem is that first time buyers are swamped with student loans so they have difficulty making monthly payments.
Reaction:
I think this is where the saying that the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer would come into play. I think it's great that at least some of the housing market is doing well but I feel that there should be better loans for first-time buyers. I feel like we should do something to even out the success of the house market, to steady it if you will. If we help the lower class buyers the housing market would eventually even out altogether, we could either do this by increasing the property tax or, like I said earlier, help lower class home buyers receive loans.
Connection:
Conservatives would be against taking some of the profits from the luxury house market and putting it towards lower class loans because they are against spending more money. But Liberals would be for it because they want the government to spend more money on the poor and they want to tax the rich more.
Summary:
The number of houses sold for the price of 750,000 to 1 million dropped by 35.5 percent from July 2007 to July 2008, but by July 2013 the number of houses sold for more than 1 million dollars went up 46.6 percent from July 2012. "The housing market is being driven up by the move-up buyer, the luxury buyer,", said by Brad Hunter, the chief economist and director of consulting at Metrostudy, housing market information provider. What he is saying is the housing market is being revitalized by the increase in size for luxury houses, the tacked on costs of more bedrooms and bigger kitchens is fueling the increase in luxury housing market profits. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, affluent buyers are buying more real estate, applications for home loans of 625,000 to 729,000 went up 56.7 percent from August 2012 to 2013, and applications for more than 729,000 went up 41 percent, but the bad news is smaller, cheaper home applications fell .6 percent. The problem is that first time buyers are swamped with student loans so they have difficulty making monthly payments.
Reaction:
I think this is where the saying that the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer would come into play. I think it's great that at least some of the housing market is doing well but I feel that there should be better loans for first-time buyers. I feel like we should do something to even out the success of the house market, to steady it if you will. If we help the lower class buyers the housing market would eventually even out altogether, we could either do this by increasing the property tax or, like I said earlier, help lower class home buyers receive loans.
Connection:
Conservatives would be against taking some of the profits from the luxury house market and putting it towards lower class loans because they are against spending more money. But Liberals would be for it because they want the government to spend more money on the poor and they want to tax the rich more.
Henry Crowley Social Welfare: The Poor Don't Lie and Cheat Any More Than the Rest of Us
Summary: In response to criticisms stating that the poor sop up all the government's financial aid, Anthony W. Orlando writes a post explaining the realistic statistic for fraud from both the poor and middle class. He states that government investigations of fraud suspicion have resulted in a very low percentage. "Less than two percent of the programs' budgets get ripped off." The investigations have further uncovered that most of the government fraud is a result of the actions by the middle class and the rich. In one instance, during Hurricane Katrina, 500 million dollars lost due to fraud were taken by the contractors charged with rebuilding homes, not the poor population whose homes were destroyed. These numbers are significant in persuading politicians to not dismiss the poor as untrustworthy and lying scoundrels.
Reaction: Upon reading and analyzing the article, I am not surprised that the richer are more guilty of fraud than the poor. Like the article said, psychologists claim that those with higher incomes have lower morality and care less about the problems of others. However, the last sentences about U.S. politicians' reasoning for ignoring the problems of the poor did leave me surprised. Because they assume the poor are lazy and untrustworthy, politicians decide to not allow them certain aspects of welfare. These assumptions should be widely recognized as incorrect and immoral.
Connection: On occasion when the media reports on politics, yellow journalism will shroud and distort the true perspective on the issue at hand. Similarly, modern politicians are confused as to why welfare for the poor isn't being funded as much. They have the incorrect assumption that the poor are uneducated and too lazy to deserve financial aid. These distortions of the truth hurt both the political and the outside worlds around us.
Reaction: Upon reading and analyzing the article, I am not surprised that the richer are more guilty of fraud than the poor. Like the article said, psychologists claim that those with higher incomes have lower morality and care less about the problems of others. However, the last sentences about U.S. politicians' reasoning for ignoring the problems of the poor did leave me surprised. Because they assume the poor are lazy and untrustworthy, politicians decide to not allow them certain aspects of welfare. These assumptions should be widely recognized as incorrect and immoral.
Connection: On occasion when the media reports on politics, yellow journalism will shroud and distort the true perspective on the issue at hand. Similarly, modern politicians are confused as to why welfare for the poor isn't being funded as much. They have the incorrect assumption that the poor are uneducated and too lazy to deserve financial aid. These distortions of the truth hurt both the political and the outside worlds around us.
Matt Van Horn-Economy- "5 Reasons 2014 Is Looking Good for the U.S. Economy"
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/01/15/5-reasons-2014-is-looking-good-for-the-us-economy
Summary-
The economies long four year recovery is now on the rise for expansion and growth. This article lists five reasons to expect a 3.5 percent real GDP growth or even better. The first is because deleveraging is in the past, deleveraging is the process where in each sector of the economy it is trying to proportion and balance out a budget to reduce the debt and ultimately make it out of debt in the short term future. With this step out to the way the economy is ready to roll. The second reason is that the Fiscal and regulatory drag is diminishing. National debt is diminishing, in 2009 it was 1.4 trillion but in 2014 its expected to be only 500 billion. The third reason is that the worst for Europe is now over. The US was not the only one having economic issues, now that Europe is clearing its way out of debt we can expect more opportunities for financial growth. The fourth reason is that the federal government is finally positive about the economic situation, this can create more confidence in spending. Lastly the energy boom continues, the US production of crude oil and natural gasses is growing creating profit to cut away at the debt.
Reaction-
With all of the information they have collected in this article it does a pretty good job of allowing you to have an idea of how the government has been attacking the recession crisis/issue. I'm glad it looks like the worst of the storm is over and clearer skies are ahead. It seems like there is a plan in effect to combat the debt effectively allowing for a more secure financial future. One of the only things I am worried about is the unknown factors that could possibly happen unexpectedly and turn the situation right back around again.
Connection- You can connect this whole situation back to the basis of Federalism. If each state had equal power at a national level I don't believe we would even have a chance at lowering this debt. Which each states interests at an equal playing field there own selfish nature would try to turn things around for there state but would end up most likely hurting the nation as a whole. This is a great example of why the Federalist system is important to keep a nation sovereign and strong enough to protect the interests of its people.
Summary-
The economies long four year recovery is now on the rise for expansion and growth. This article lists five reasons to expect a 3.5 percent real GDP growth or even better. The first is because deleveraging is in the past, deleveraging is the process where in each sector of the economy it is trying to proportion and balance out a budget to reduce the debt and ultimately make it out of debt in the short term future. With this step out to the way the economy is ready to roll. The second reason is that the Fiscal and regulatory drag is diminishing. National debt is diminishing, in 2009 it was 1.4 trillion but in 2014 its expected to be only 500 billion. The third reason is that the worst for Europe is now over. The US was not the only one having economic issues, now that Europe is clearing its way out of debt we can expect more opportunities for financial growth. The fourth reason is that the federal government is finally positive about the economic situation, this can create more confidence in spending. Lastly the energy boom continues, the US production of crude oil and natural gasses is growing creating profit to cut away at the debt.
Reaction-
With all of the information they have collected in this article it does a pretty good job of allowing you to have an idea of how the government has been attacking the recession crisis/issue. I'm glad it looks like the worst of the storm is over and clearer skies are ahead. It seems like there is a plan in effect to combat the debt effectively allowing for a more secure financial future. One of the only things I am worried about is the unknown factors that could possibly happen unexpectedly and turn the situation right back around again.
Connection- You can connect this whole situation back to the basis of Federalism. If each state had equal power at a national level I don't believe we would even have a chance at lowering this debt. Which each states interests at an equal playing field there own selfish nature would try to turn things around for there state but would end up most likely hurting the nation as a whole. This is a great example of why the Federalist system is important to keep a nation sovereign and strong enough to protect the interests of its people.
Ann Clare thachil- economy "raising the minimum wage: a tired, bad proposal
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340644/raising-minimum-wage-tired-bad-proposal-veronique-de-rugy
Summary:
This article shows the possible negative effects for raising minimum wage for low-income Americans. Many politicians believe that raising the minimum wage will reduce poverty because people are getting more money. But according to this article, studies have proven that raising the mimimum wage will not result in less poverty. They believe that a persons earning should be based on schooling and skills they have in the labor market. So raising the minimum wage could discourage many people to go to school and get a better education. Another consequence of raising the minimum wage would be encouraging employers to hire illegal Americans because this policy would not apply to them.
Reaction:
Reading this article really changed my position on raising mimimum wage. I though that raising the minimum wage would be a positive benefit on the economy. But I now realize that the negative long-term consequences out weight the postive benefits. I especially agree with the fact that raising the minimum wage would discourage kids to drop out of school. I believe that you should only earn what you worked hard for like schooling.
Connection:
I think that there is an analogy between the bias in media and the discussion on raising minimum wage. Just like the media only reporters on what the audience want to see, the politicians only discuss on the positive effects of raising minimum wage; and that what the audience want to hear about. Politicians always put out certain policies that will be favored by certain groups but they completely forget about the bad effects that it can have. There is evidence for this because there are far more articles favoring raising minimum wage than ones that don't.
Hannah Chin Social Welfare 1 - In Battle Against Fraud in Free Phone Service, the Poor Might Pay the Price
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/us/a-lifeline-for-the-poor-free-phone-service-faces-legal-battle.html?_r=0
Summary: The Lifeline Telephone Service, sponsored by Samsung, allows people who meet income guidelines or are enrolled in programs such as Medicaid or food stamps, the opportunity to have telephone and internet connection for free. Since these citizens are already on a fixed, low income, Lifeline ensures that they can contact EMS, police, transportation, and family for little to no cost. However, there have been many breaches in this program. Georgia is the first state in the country to challenge the fraud and mandate that the program begin to start charging the citizens who use Lifeline five dollars a month. In creating this requirement, Georgia hopes that there will be less fraud cases within the system. However, the poor cannot afford to pay five extra dollars a month to have electronic communication services. The proposed fee just serves as a penalty to the poor.
Reaction: I was stunned by Georgia's decision to mandate the Lifeline program. Although I understand that there is fraud within the system, this program is extremely vital to many citizens. Almost everything in our society is run electronically. It is extremely difficult to communicate without internet connection or phone services. Unfortunately a few people ruined the program for every one in this case. I have empathy for those who use Lifeline appropriately for emergencies and are having to cut back on other necessary expenses in order to pay the fee each month.
Connection: Most Republican and right wing conservatives are opposed to welfare because they believe it discourages living within means and gaining employment. They would see this free program as a form of welfare. Although my personal opinion differs from those Republicans, I completely understand their point. Is it fair to ask taxpayers to pay more so that the impoverished can continue to have free phone and internet? If some citizens abuse the power of Lifeline, should we make regulations within the program such as employment requirements? The conservatives present a strong case. The goal of the American government is to provide the opportunity for all citizens to live a life of liberty and well-being. The Lifeline program is just one more way to provide easy access communication to all citizens and improve their way of life.
Summary: The Lifeline Telephone Service, sponsored by Samsung, allows people who meet income guidelines or are enrolled in programs such as Medicaid or food stamps, the opportunity to have telephone and internet connection for free. Since these citizens are already on a fixed, low income, Lifeline ensures that they can contact EMS, police, transportation, and family for little to no cost. However, there have been many breaches in this program. Georgia is the first state in the country to challenge the fraud and mandate that the program begin to start charging the citizens who use Lifeline five dollars a month. In creating this requirement, Georgia hopes that there will be less fraud cases within the system. However, the poor cannot afford to pay five extra dollars a month to have electronic communication services. The proposed fee just serves as a penalty to the poor.
Reaction: I was stunned by Georgia's decision to mandate the Lifeline program. Although I understand that there is fraud within the system, this program is extremely vital to many citizens. Almost everything in our society is run electronically. It is extremely difficult to communicate without internet connection or phone services. Unfortunately a few people ruined the program for every one in this case. I have empathy for those who use Lifeline appropriately for emergencies and are having to cut back on other necessary expenses in order to pay the fee each month.
Connection: Most Republican and right wing conservatives are opposed to welfare because they believe it discourages living within means and gaining employment. They would see this free program as a form of welfare. Although my personal opinion differs from those Republicans, I completely understand their point. Is it fair to ask taxpayers to pay more so that the impoverished can continue to have free phone and internet? If some citizens abuse the power of Lifeline, should we make regulations within the program such as employment requirements? The conservatives present a strong case. The goal of the American government is to provide the opportunity for all citizens to live a life of liberty and well-being. The Lifeline program is just one more way to provide easy access communication to all citizens and improve their way of life.
Mikeala Lowry N.S.A. Devises Radio Pathway Into Computers
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/nsa-effort-pries-open-computers-not-connected-to-internet.html?_r=0
Summary: The National Security Agency has put software in 10,000 computers to monitor cyberattacks. This software has been around since 2008, however part of it has changed. A new radio wave can be transmitted from the software in the computer to relay stations set up miles away. The software is used to monitor against foreign cyber attacks. It isn't used on people's computers here. It also isn't used to get information from other countries to give to buisness owners here get an advantage. Other countries, like China for example, find this software unfair. When Chuna put similar software on American computers, our government protested heavily. Now China feels the same way.
Reaction: I think the software is a good idea as long as it is used for its intended purpose. It's a good idea for our government to be able to keep watch on foreign cyberattacks. They are saying it is an "act of active defense." As king as the government uses it to keep people safe, the software is fine. But if the software is used on the American people's computers it isn't ok. There is obviously more surveillance on computers in American than there was in the past, but looking at what people are doing all the time with no valid reason isn't ok.
Connection: This connects to what we talked about previously in class with the decline in trust in the government. Even though this software isn't being used on the American people, the idea is now there. People that don't trust the government now fear that the software could be used on them next. This leads to more mistrust and wariness of the government.
Summary: The National Security Agency has put software in 10,000 computers to monitor cyberattacks. This software has been around since 2008, however part of it has changed. A new radio wave can be transmitted from the software in the computer to relay stations set up miles away. The software is used to monitor against foreign cyber attacks. It isn't used on people's computers here. It also isn't used to get information from other countries to give to buisness owners here get an advantage. Other countries, like China for example, find this software unfair. When Chuna put similar software on American computers, our government protested heavily. Now China feels the same way.
Reaction: I think the software is a good idea as long as it is used for its intended purpose. It's a good idea for our government to be able to keep watch on foreign cyberattacks. They are saying it is an "act of active defense." As king as the government uses it to keep people safe, the software is fine. But if the software is used on the American people's computers it isn't ok. There is obviously more surveillance on computers in American than there was in the past, but looking at what people are doing all the time with no valid reason isn't ok.
Connection: This connects to what we talked about previously in class with the decline in trust in the government. Even though this software isn't being used on the American people, the idea is now there. People that don't trust the government now fear that the software could be used on them next. This leads to more mistrust and wariness of the government.
Friday, January 24, 2014
McKenna Earnest Healthcare High-tech upgrades may let aging boomers live independently in their own homes longer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/hi-tech-upgrades-may-let-aging-baby-boomers-live-independently-in-their-own-homes-longer/2014/01/20/72e3d3b8-759f-11e3-8b3f-b1666705ca3b_story.html
Summary: Senior citizens usually aren't too fond of nursing homes. Most seniors want to stay as independent as they can for as long as they can. With new technology, they can. There are new upgrades to allow older people to stay in their homes longer and remain safe and independent. There are sensors that could be put into floors that would be able to tell and alert someone if the senior had fallen and couldn't get back up. The senior could also wear a necklace sort of thing around their necks that would also alert someone if there was some sort of movement that could indicate that the elder had fallen. Some people behind the technology have said that this could also help doctors diagnose their patients easier. They will be able to monitor the senior in a natural environment to see what's really going on. They could also do video calls at the home to let the senior citizen feel more comfortable and they can actually talk about what's going on in a more natural environment.
Reaction: I think that this is all a really great idea. My grandma lives at home still and she falls a lot and falls asleep at really bad times and in really bad places. I think something like this would help her a lot because she refuses to be taken into a nursing home because she wants to remain so independent. Something like this could keep her safe, and happy. The only problem with something like this is how expensive it would be. This type of technology is guaranteed to cost a fortune and some older people don't have that money and have already retired, leaving them with the money they have. Would come form of insurance be able to pay for this possibly life saving technology?
Connection: This could connect to how many people vote for the person that guarantees they can get something done for the public. If a candidate said they could guarantee this type of technology showing up in the homes of older people who need it, this candidate would likely get many votes. The votes could come from the seniors who would like to stay independent longer and from the families of stubborn seniors, like mine with my grandma.
Summary: Senior citizens usually aren't too fond of nursing homes. Most seniors want to stay as independent as they can for as long as they can. With new technology, they can. There are new upgrades to allow older people to stay in their homes longer and remain safe and independent. There are sensors that could be put into floors that would be able to tell and alert someone if the senior had fallen and couldn't get back up. The senior could also wear a necklace sort of thing around their necks that would also alert someone if there was some sort of movement that could indicate that the elder had fallen. Some people behind the technology have said that this could also help doctors diagnose their patients easier. They will be able to monitor the senior in a natural environment to see what's really going on. They could also do video calls at the home to let the senior citizen feel more comfortable and they can actually talk about what's going on in a more natural environment.
Reaction: I think that this is all a really great idea. My grandma lives at home still and she falls a lot and falls asleep at really bad times and in really bad places. I think something like this would help her a lot because she refuses to be taken into a nursing home because she wants to remain so independent. Something like this could keep her safe, and happy. The only problem with something like this is how expensive it would be. This type of technology is guaranteed to cost a fortune and some older people don't have that money and have already retired, leaving them with the money they have. Would come form of insurance be able to pay for this possibly life saving technology?
Connection: This could connect to how many people vote for the person that guarantees they can get something done for the public. If a candidate said they could guarantee this type of technology showing up in the homes of older people who need it, this candidate would likely get many votes. The votes could come from the seniors who would like to stay independent longer and from the families of stubborn seniors, like mine with my grandma.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Brianna Klabunde- Healthcare- Is the U.S. too corrupt for single-payer health care?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/16/is-the-u-s-too-corrupt-for-single-payer-health-care/
Summary: The question is, instead of having the countless healthcare providers in our country, could we instead have one central source of healthcare for the entire nation, or are we too self interested? The issue itself is not debated in the article, but instead whether we could even handle a single-payer system. In a single-payer world, the bar for healthcare payment would be set my the national government. The concern of the people is that this system could be too easily corrupted by the health industry.
Reaction: In my opinion, it is entirely plausible that our system is too corrupt for a single-payer health care system. The desire for money and business is one reason for this. Variety of options and payments is hectic and unorganized at time but can also be beneficial for such a diverse nation. Simply the fact that people do not want the federal government to be in charge of the healthcare payment is another reason.
Connection: This concept loosely reminds me of devolution. In a single-payer system, that one provider would maintain all the power and the rest of the US would have to abide by the prices. Although in the current system we have of various providers, the power is distributed. There is no one entity that is greater than all the rest. Each group handle's their business differently.
Summary: The question is, instead of having the countless healthcare providers in our country, could we instead have one central source of healthcare for the entire nation, or are we too self interested? The issue itself is not debated in the article, but instead whether we could even handle a single-payer system. In a single-payer world, the bar for healthcare payment would be set my the national government. The concern of the people is that this system could be too easily corrupted by the health industry.
Reaction: In my opinion, it is entirely plausible that our system is too corrupt for a single-payer health care system. The desire for money and business is one reason for this. Variety of options and payments is hectic and unorganized at time but can also be beneficial for such a diverse nation. Simply the fact that people do not want the federal government to be in charge of the healthcare payment is another reason.
Connection: This concept loosely reminds me of devolution. In a single-payer system, that one provider would maintain all the power and the rest of the US would have to abide by the prices. Although in the current system we have of various providers, the power is distributed. There is no one entity that is greater than all the rest. Each group handle's their business differently.
Sydney Wientjes; National Security: "'Jihad Jane' Sentenced To 10 Years For Terrorism Plot"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/06/jihad-jane-sentenced-10-years_n_4549438.html#slide=965766
Summary: Colleen R. LaRose, a 50 year old woman from Philadelphia was convicted of plotting and nearly executing a terrorist attack. The blonde-haired green-eyed American woman was persuaded to convert to Islam online, and remained faithful to the religion. She was so dedicated that she plotted an assassination of a Swedish artist that she determined was disgracing the Prophet Mohammad by painting his face on the body of a dog. The woman's accomplice was detained in Ireland, and is in prison for related terrorist crimes while facing extradition to the US. LaRose was reported to have regretted being involved with the group, and blamed her dark past and broken family life for her easy conversion to radical Islam. She now faces ten years behind bars.
Reaction: I was very surprised at the fact that these online Islam conversions happened at all, but I was not shocked at all that this woman was converted so easily. She was repeatedly scarred throughout her childhood and, like many young people who join street gangs, wanted a sense of unity and security. Unfortunately for LaRose, it was a radical terrorist organization. I was also surprised that the artist being plotted against admitted that her sentence was "a tough one," though she only has to serve 90% of it.
Connection: This article can be connected to what we've been learning because her accomplice, who fled to another country, still faces charges of extradition here in the United States because the attack was planned to ensue on our soil. This can also be connected to the difference in opinions between Republicans and Liberals on sentencing criminals. Most republicans would want to give LaRose much harsher charges and much longer time behind bars, while the Liberals would typically be in favor of her 10 year, relatively "easy" sentence.
Summary: Colleen R. LaRose, a 50 year old woman from Philadelphia was convicted of plotting and nearly executing a terrorist attack. The blonde-haired green-eyed American woman was persuaded to convert to Islam online, and remained faithful to the religion. She was so dedicated that she plotted an assassination of a Swedish artist that she determined was disgracing the Prophet Mohammad by painting his face on the body of a dog. The woman's accomplice was detained in Ireland, and is in prison for related terrorist crimes while facing extradition to the US. LaRose was reported to have regretted being involved with the group, and blamed her dark past and broken family life for her easy conversion to radical Islam. She now faces ten years behind bars.
Reaction: I was very surprised at the fact that these online Islam conversions happened at all, but I was not shocked at all that this woman was converted so easily. She was repeatedly scarred throughout her childhood and, like many young people who join street gangs, wanted a sense of unity and security. Unfortunately for LaRose, it was a radical terrorist organization. I was also surprised that the artist being plotted against admitted that her sentence was "a tough one," though she only has to serve 90% of it.
Connection: This article can be connected to what we've been learning because her accomplice, who fled to another country, still faces charges of extradition here in the United States because the attack was planned to ensue on our soil. This can also be connected to the difference in opinions between Republicans and Liberals on sentencing criminals. Most republicans would want to give LaRose much harsher charges and much longer time behind bars, while the Liberals would typically be in favor of her 10 year, relatively "easy" sentence.
Liz Flanagan IRS Rarely Denies 'Social Welfare' Applicants, Data Shows
Summary- In the past four fiscal years (September-October) the IRS has only denied 60 applications from organizations seeking to become a "social welfare group." They approved 6,837 of the 8, 214 who applied (about 83 percent). These approvals have struck controversy because if an inspector general report saying that IRS employees "used inappropriate criteria" to determine which organizations were deserving of this welfare assistance. Nonetheless, in the 2012 fiscal year, the IRS saw a 56% increase in applications.
Reaction- These statistics shocked me. I was never aware of how "easy" it was for organizations to receive welfare. Although there is still risk involved when submitting an application, the chances of getting an approval are higher than I expected. It was always evident to me that getting welfare was a long and tedious process. Also, these high numbers and increase in applications make it seem as if these organizations trust our government.
Connection- The high number of application submissions and approval rates that create an image of reliable government and a trustworthy people is much like a common theme in the political participation of chapter six. When our government can pull through and offer something the people want, they eat it up and can at least temporarily trust their authority.
Reaction- These statistics shocked me. I was never aware of how "easy" it was for organizations to receive welfare. Although there is still risk involved when submitting an application, the chances of getting an approval are higher than I expected. It was always evident to me that getting welfare was a long and tedious process. Also, these high numbers and increase in applications make it seem as if these organizations trust our government.
Connection- The high number of application submissions and approval rates that create an image of reliable government and a trustworthy people is much like a common theme in the political participation of chapter six. When our government can pull through and offer something the people want, they eat it up and can at least temporarily trust their authority.
Matt Van Horn-National Security-"Snowden denies receiving assistance from Russian intelligence with NSA leaks"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/snowden-denies-receiving-assistance-from-russian-intelligence-with-nsa-leaks/2014/01/21/a85cca18-830a-11e3-9dd4-e7278db80d86_story.html
Summary-
Edward Snowden spoke out about resent allegations that he was working with another government agency when he stole and leaked numerous classified documents from the NSA. Snowden called the accusations "absurd"; and claims that he did everything on his own without the help of anyone, especially another government. The CIA and FBI have been running and extensive ongoing investigation to try and prove that Snowden was indeed sharing information with other government agencies. So far there efforts have brought up no information to proof those theories true. Many government officials ask isn't it just a funny coincidence that he fled to Russia after his incident of treason. Snowden says he tried to flee to Cuba but the State department cancelled his pass port and was left with Russia as another option.
Reaction-
I think I am going to have to side with Snowden on this one. I feel like his story of leaking the information to better the American peoples awareness of the huge behind the scenes scandalous activities is the most believable. Like it said in the article the CIA has been investigating but can't seem to find anything against him involving another Country. Snowden seems to be acting in complete confidence that his views and standpoints are not crazy and are actually correct. It seems to me like hes been creating quite a massive headache in Washington.
Connection-
With all of the information Snowden leaked I feel like the Federal Government monitoring and storing all phone calls and texts is the scariest. It is a huge invasion of privacy that the Federal Government should have no power over. It seems to me it is the invasion of the government on the private property of the people which is protected under the constitution and bill of rights. This is exactly the type of government power and tyranny that the founding fathers were worried so much about.
Nick Steinke national security terrorism
http://www.usnews.com/topics/subjects/national-security-terrorism-and-the-military
Summary
U.S. national security and their fight against terrorism. Since December of 2009 there has been two attempted terrorist attacks, one in an airport and another in a car bomb in New York. These attempted attacks forced Obama's administration to focus their attention to al Qaeda. As of May of 2010 Obama administration has created a 52 page outline of the new defense plan. Lastly all the ground troops have left Iraq but 30,000 more troops have been added to Afghanistan.
Reaction
I am surprised that Obama administration has been so offensive with gobal affairs. Moving troops around and using strength and force to keep peace and control and safety. I am happy with idea that the government understands safety and trys hard to keep us safe in the homeland. keeps peace and keeps peace of mind to feel safe in ones country.
Connection
After reading this article Obama is considered a democrat, but after learning the differnet types of political views I understand that he isn't a solid liberal. Showing how aggressive Obama is with national security and defense shows his less democratic side. Which is supported by many people including those that didn't even vote for him.
Summary
U.S. national security and their fight against terrorism. Since December of 2009 there has been two attempted terrorist attacks, one in an airport and another in a car bomb in New York. These attempted attacks forced Obama's administration to focus their attention to al Qaeda. As of May of 2010 Obama administration has created a 52 page outline of the new defense plan. Lastly all the ground troops have left Iraq but 30,000 more troops have been added to Afghanistan.
Reaction
I am surprised that Obama administration has been so offensive with gobal affairs. Moving troops around and using strength and force to keep peace and control and safety. I am happy with idea that the government understands safety and trys hard to keep us safe in the homeland. keeps peace and keeps peace of mind to feel safe in ones country.
Connection
After reading this article Obama is considered a democrat, but after learning the differnet types of political views I understand that he isn't a solid liberal. Showing how aggressive Obama is with national security and defense shows his less democratic side. Which is supported by many people including those that didn't even vote for him.
Jason Erbst- Social Welfare- "change is gonna come": poverty from Johnson to Obama
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/20/opinion/brazile-poverty/
Summary: This articles main focus is that many people think that our country has much more poverty than it has in the past. The article and statistics say otherwise. Many people may see that we have more poverty just because it is always pretty high on the policy agenda. Although this can be looked at wrong. When Johnson was president, poverty was at a 26% rate while through the years and going through Obama first term, the rate is down to 16%. People according to this article are often mislead by appearance.
Reaction: I did know that poverty has on fact been going down although it has always been a pretty high priority. I did not know how much the rate of poverty went down. For all the criticizing that Obama has gotten, the poverty rate at least gone no where during his presidency which means he may not be improving in that field. But he isn't regressing with the progress achieved the past few decades.
Connection: I connect this to our policy making system. It starts with the people and will slowly creep up to the agenda. If it is an overwhelming issue, congress is almost obligated to deal with this situation. According to the previous stat of the decline in percentage of poverty ridden people, congress and the whole government has done a very good job. People may say they could have done a lot more but they have to realize how much they have to deal with and how good of a job they have still done with addressing majority of the issues.
Summary: This articles main focus is that many people think that our country has much more poverty than it has in the past. The article and statistics say otherwise. Many people may see that we have more poverty just because it is always pretty high on the policy agenda. Although this can be looked at wrong. When Johnson was president, poverty was at a 26% rate while through the years and going through Obama first term, the rate is down to 16%. People according to this article are often mislead by appearance.
Reaction: I did know that poverty has on fact been going down although it has always been a pretty high priority. I did not know how much the rate of poverty went down. For all the criticizing that Obama has gotten, the poverty rate at least gone no where during his presidency which means he may not be improving in that field. But he isn't regressing with the progress achieved the past few decades.
Connection: I connect this to our policy making system. It starts with the people and will slowly creep up to the agenda. If it is an overwhelming issue, congress is almost obligated to deal with this situation. According to the previous stat of the decline in percentage of poverty ridden people, congress and the whole government has done a very good job. People may say they could have done a lot more but they have to realize how much they have to deal with and how good of a job they have still done with addressing majority of the issues.
Doyle Uncovering America's Economic Weaknesses
http://blog.heritage.org/2014/01/19/uncovering-americas-economic-weaknesses/
Summary: Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal release a yearly, worldwide, economic freedom index. This Index ranks countries upon 4 categories; rule of law, limited government, regulatory efficiency, and open markets. We have dropped each of the last 8 years and are currently 12th. This is caused by the rise of regulatory requirements, ($60 billion since 2009), tax rates (1/4 dollars goes to the government), and government spending (40% gdp). On the plus side, business startup is efficient, averaging 5 days, and the labor market is flexible. Although we are declining, our current situation is still very good.
Reaction: Although I expected the good old U.S. of A to be ranked higher than 12 that isn't bad all things considered. Obviously being #1, although good economically, is bad in other areas. A lack of restrictions could create massive pollution and smog, much like the industrial revolution. But restrictions aren't what's pushing our rankings down, taxes and government spending are. The government takes one of every four dollars made and spends 40% of our domestic product, there is something fundamentally wrong with this. If our nation is to continue to be a super power, we cannot fall any further as any more decline will kill the economy and make tax rates that much more crippling.
Connection: This is directly related to the underpinning of the constitution, mainly the taxes. The founding fathers wanted a small government with a free market economy. The government taking 1 dollar of every 4 I work for is neither. This is one less dollar for me to spend supporting businesses and ideas I like or think are good, one of my freedoms. Did the founding fathers support taxes? Yes, but not for welfare and other social policies that most would never get money from, for roads and post offices and things that keep our country going. One of the driving forces behind our revolution was taxation without representation, a vortex we are quickly sliding into again.
Ann Clare thachil national security- climate change seen as threat to us security
Blog 2
Ann Clare thachil national security
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Summary:
Analysts say that the changing global climate change will produce challenges to the United States in the coming decades. And there will a need for more military interventions to deal with the effects of storms, droughts and mass migration. These climate crises can result in more terrorist movements and destabilize regions in the world. According to the analysts, they predict that in the next few decades, regions in Africa and Asia will result in food shortages, flooding and water crises due to the climate changes. So there will be more demand for American relief and military response. Many believe that these climate change will happen because of global warming and releases of gases into the atmosphere. If the United States doesn't reduce the emmisions of these gases, then there would be more crises that the nation would have to address. Also with these climate changes, many people could be injured or even killed. Peter Ogden says that, "the sense that climate change poses security and geopolitical challenges is central to thinking of the state department and the climate office".
Reaction:
I definitely believe that these climate changes could result for a threat to national security because with more disasters, there would be in more need of military interventions in the nation. Also there would be more unstablized regions in the nation and that might create a weaker government. I believe there something should be done about global warming because that is the future of us. And because of these climate changes, there would be chaos in the regions that the floods and drought hit. Because national security is needed for survival, there should be something done about this.
Connection:
The course connection from this topic to the course is that liberals would be in support of taking action for global warming and other facters that could lead to climate change. Liberals are trying to propose many laws that might reduce the releases of gases to the atmosphere.
Kylee Cangas No, Raising The Minimum Wage Won't Kill The Economy, In 9 Charts
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/14/minimum-wage-raise-proof_n_4597721.html
Summary- This article explains the possible benefits of increasing minimum wage rates for the country. It is stated that raising the wage to 10.10 an hour would increase jobs and increase spending. It explains that in states where minimum wage has already been increased there has been no ill affects in job growth and actually an expected increase in jobs. It also includes possible benefits like potentially pushing the poor out of poverty and decreasing the gender gap between salaries. It is expected that it will help the economy buy giving spenders more money to spend and thus increasing the GDP of the United States. The article is very convincing however it does not touch on any of the potentially downfalls of increasing minimum wage.
Reaction- Personally, I agree with raising minimum wage. I may be biased in this opinion being that most if the jobs available to me as a young adult are jobs that offer minimum wage salaries. However I think that helping people in poverty in this way would be beneficial. I also know that so far there has been no decrease in jobs in states that have raised their minimum wage so the evidence seems to be in favor. As times change in the country certain things need to be updated and changed along with the growth of a country and I believe the minimum wage is something that changes with that.
Connection- This connects to the Constitution in terms of the cooperative powers of the government and the state. Minimum wage is one of the things not listed in the constitution to the federal government so therefore it is a state power. However after the Steamboat case it was determined tthat the federal government has say over interstate commerce and they do have the power to set a national minimum wage requirement because of goods from business crossing state lines. States can raise their own minimum wage by themselves to over the rate, like some have, but the government can raise the standard for the whole country. That is how the article connects somewhat to the Constitution.
Summary- This article explains the possible benefits of increasing minimum wage rates for the country. It is stated that raising the wage to 10.10 an hour would increase jobs and increase spending. It explains that in states where minimum wage has already been increased there has been no ill affects in job growth and actually an expected increase in jobs. It also includes possible benefits like potentially pushing the poor out of poverty and decreasing the gender gap between salaries. It is expected that it will help the economy buy giving spenders more money to spend and thus increasing the GDP of the United States. The article is very convincing however it does not touch on any of the potentially downfalls of increasing minimum wage.
Reaction- Personally, I agree with raising minimum wage. I may be biased in this opinion being that most if the jobs available to me as a young adult are jobs that offer minimum wage salaries. However I think that helping people in poverty in this way would be beneficial. I also know that so far there has been no decrease in jobs in states that have raised their minimum wage so the evidence seems to be in favor. As times change in the country certain things need to be updated and changed along with the growth of a country and I believe the minimum wage is something that changes with that.
Connection- This connects to the Constitution in terms of the cooperative powers of the government and the state. Minimum wage is one of the things not listed in the constitution to the federal government so therefore it is a state power. However after the Steamboat case it was determined tthat the federal government has say over interstate commerce and they do have the power to set a national minimum wage requirement because of goods from business crossing state lines. States can raise their own minimum wage by themselves to over the rate, like some have, but the government can raise the standard for the whole country. That is how the article connects somewhat to the Constitution.
Austin Dreher - Social Welfare Spending Hit $641 Billion in Fiscal 1983
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-01/news/mn-23270_1_social-welfare
Summary - This article was all about trends in Social Welfare spending in previous years. It gives information on each section of social welfare spending. It provides an unbiased opinion towards the matter, and simply gives data for the purpose of further understanding.
Reaction - I do realize that this article is around two decades old, however, I believe that one can use the knowledge of previous articles to form trends and understand how economic situations can transpire in the future. I believe that if Social Welfare spending continues at the rate in which it was in the past, then it could potentially be a major problem for the Government in the future (which it is).
Connection - I believe that this article relates to John Locke's theories in the sense that the Government is required to protect its citizens rights of food and shelter, and one way they do this is by enacting Social Welfare policies in order to provide them with the food and housing that these citizens need.
Summary - This article was all about trends in Social Welfare spending in previous years. It gives information on each section of social welfare spending. It provides an unbiased opinion towards the matter, and simply gives data for the purpose of further understanding.
Reaction - I do realize that this article is around two decades old, however, I believe that one can use the knowledge of previous articles to form trends and understand how economic situations can transpire in the future. I believe that if Social Welfare spending continues at the rate in which it was in the past, then it could potentially be a major problem for the Government in the future (which it is).
Connection - I believe that this article relates to John Locke's theories in the sense that the Government is required to protect its citizens rights of food and shelter, and one way they do this is by enacting Social Welfare policies in order to provide them with the food and housing that these citizens need.
Blake Bodenschatz: Consumers won't help economy
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2011-10-02/cnbc-consumers-economy/50619276/1
Summary: The article states that consumer buying has gone down 2.8% from 2009-2010, and a 2% decline from 2010-2011. It has continued to go down because they have their own problems to deal with, either with their own debt problems or having a hard time building up savings. There is a fear that we will become what Japan was like in the 1990's due to having a large economic crisis. Joshua Shapiro, chief economist at MFR securities, states that in order for less people to be in debt from their mortgages and spend more is for the price of houses to drop another 20%.
Reaction: I am not surprised that consumer spending will not help the economy. Since if the consumers struggle with debt of their own they would not spend more money than they have saved up because they need to spend that money on necessary items for them to survive like food and shelter. What does surprise me is that house prices need to drop drastically in order for people to be able to save up money and not spend so much on their mortgage.
Connection: This is similar to under the Articles of Confederation that many lower class people did not have enough money to even keep their houses. If they could not pay for their houses and would go to much into debt they could lose their land which is similar now because people's houses can be foreclosed if they can not keep up on their payments.
Summary: The article states that consumer buying has gone down 2.8% from 2009-2010, and a 2% decline from 2010-2011. It has continued to go down because they have their own problems to deal with, either with their own debt problems or having a hard time building up savings. There is a fear that we will become what Japan was like in the 1990's due to having a large economic crisis. Joshua Shapiro, chief economist at MFR securities, states that in order for less people to be in debt from their mortgages and spend more is for the price of houses to drop another 20%.
Reaction: I am not surprised that consumer spending will not help the economy. Since if the consumers struggle with debt of their own they would not spend more money than they have saved up because they need to spend that money on necessary items for them to survive like food and shelter. What does surprise me is that house prices need to drop drastically in order for people to be able to save up money and not spend so much on their mortgage.
Connection: This is similar to under the Articles of Confederation that many lower class people did not have enough money to even keep their houses. If they could not pay for their houses and would go to much into debt they could lose their land which is similar now because people's houses can be foreclosed if they can not keep up on their payments.
Emma Walraven National Security Post #2
http://www.policymic.com/articles/79377/fox-news-thinks-feminists-are-a-threat-to-america-s-national-security
Summary: According to Nick Adams (not the actor), women having equal rights is affecting national security. Despite the fact that even simply increasing women's education can make an important difference in a nation's economy and development, he believes women are oppressing men and affecting national security. Adams said in an interview that "weeps and wussies deliver mediocrity and men win. And what America's always been about is winning". He also states the superiority of men is "pivotal to the health of the country".
Reaction: I think Adams' views are ridiculous. I agree with the writer of the article when he/she points out that a healthy country is dependent on a healthy dose of gender equality. I don't understand how women being equally treated is threatening to our country. Women are just as good as men and shouldn't be downgraded because "men win and America is about winning". I think it is stupid and downgrading women would just downgrade America.
Connection: The 14th amendment states that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges of citizens in the United States". Some people may not agree, but I think not allowing women to be educated and have equal rights counts as making laws that decreases our privileges
Summary: According to Nick Adams (not the actor), women having equal rights is affecting national security. Despite the fact that even simply increasing women's education can make an important difference in a nation's economy and development, he believes women are oppressing men and affecting national security. Adams said in an interview that "weeps and wussies deliver mediocrity and men win. And what America's always been about is winning". He also states the superiority of men is "pivotal to the health of the country".
Reaction: I think Adams' views are ridiculous. I agree with the writer of the article when he/she points out that a healthy country is dependent on a healthy dose of gender equality. I don't understand how women being equally treated is threatening to our country. Women are just as good as men and shouldn't be downgraded because "men win and America is about winning". I think it is stupid and downgrading women would just downgrade America.
Connection: The 14th amendment states that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges of citizens in the United States". Some people may not agree, but I think not allowing women to be educated and have equal rights counts as making laws that decreases our privileges
Mikeala Lowry Older Pool of Heath Care Enrollees Stirs Fear on Costs
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/us/health-care-plans-attracting-more-older-less-healthy-people.html?hpw&rref=us
Summary: After the new Affordable Care Act opened up federally and by state there was a rush of people to sign up. However the majority of these people are older (45-64). Very few young people have signed up and some people are starting to worry. According to Brennan Buck young people see that the cost for health care is high and they only get limited access to doctors. This turns them away from the new health care. The government needs younger people to sign up as well so that everyone getting health care isn't older and sicker. Regardless there have been 2.2 million people who have signed up. With these good numbers of sign ups both in state marketplaces and federally, government officials hope that the younger population will sign up for health care soon.
Reaction: I wasn't very surprised to hear that older people were rushing to sign up for this new health care. They are more vulnerable to sickness so of course they want to be protected in case that happens. I don't know if I believe that the younger population will start signing up soon. I think that some will because they want he good health care, but I don't believe many of them will. They are younger and healthier so they aren't as concerned about being covered in case of sickness or injury. Also some people don't like the new health care policy so they might not sign up for it.
Connection: The lack of young people signing up for the new health care connects to class and end qualities effect on voting. Younger people aren't signing up for health care because they feel they don't need it. Older citizens sign up because they really need it. This relates to minorities as a whole voting more than whites because minorities need their needs to be more publicized. The average white citizen is mostly content so they don't vote because they feel they don't need to.
Summary: After the new Affordable Care Act opened up federally and by state there was a rush of people to sign up. However the majority of these people are older (45-64). Very few young people have signed up and some people are starting to worry. According to Brennan Buck young people see that the cost for health care is high and they only get limited access to doctors. This turns them away from the new health care. The government needs younger people to sign up as well so that everyone getting health care isn't older and sicker. Regardless there have been 2.2 million people who have signed up. With these good numbers of sign ups both in state marketplaces and federally, government officials hope that the younger population will sign up for health care soon.
Reaction: I wasn't very surprised to hear that older people were rushing to sign up for this new health care. They are more vulnerable to sickness so of course they want to be protected in case that happens. I don't know if I believe that the younger population will start signing up soon. I think that some will because they want he good health care, but I don't believe many of them will. They are younger and healthier so they aren't as concerned about being covered in case of sickness or injury. Also some people don't like the new health care policy so they might not sign up for it.
Connection: The lack of young people signing up for the new health care connects to class and end qualities effect on voting. Younger people aren't signing up for health care because they feel they don't need it. Older citizens sign up because they really need it. This relates to minorities as a whole voting more than whites because minorities need their needs to be more publicized. The average white citizen is mostly content so they don't vote because they feel they don't need to.
Richest 1% Own half the World: Carter Brown Economics 2
Richest 1% own the worlds wealth
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/20/davos-2014-oxfam-85-richest-people-half-world/4655337/
Summary:
The 1% of people that are the richest in the the world own more than half the money that's in the world. This means that the bottom half of people are slowly losing money and that economic growth is helping the rich and not the poor. This is also a sign that governments could become more inclusive since money runs them and the rich people can get them to do what they want.
Reaction:
I think that there has to be a better way for money to be spread in the world. We have so much of it that it's ridiculous only a few people should own so much. The wealth should be shared and used to help people, not pay for someone's fifth Lamborghini. So we need to do someone in order to somehow make the world a more balanced place.
Connection:
This reminds me of how the constitution was made, because at the time the people who made it were the rich business men, however they did take into consideration that fact and made the constitution equal for all (almost) where as today the wealthy are keeping it all for themselves (mostly).
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/20/davos-2014-oxfam-85-richest-people-half-world/4655337/
Summary:
The 1% of people that are the richest in the the world own more than half the money that's in the world. This means that the bottom half of people are slowly losing money and that economic growth is helping the rich and not the poor. This is also a sign that governments could become more inclusive since money runs them and the rich people can get them to do what they want.
Reaction:
I think that there has to be a better way for money to be spread in the world. We have so much of it that it's ridiculous only a few people should own so much. The wealth should be shared and used to help people, not pay for someone's fifth Lamborghini. So we need to do someone in order to somehow make the world a more balanced place.
Connection:
This reminds me of how the constitution was made, because at the time the people who made it were the rich business men, however they did take into consideration that fact and made the constitution equal for all (almost) where as today the wealthy are keeping it all for themselves (mostly).
Agreement Reached to Cut Power Use by Cable Devices
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/24/business/media/agreement-reached-to-cut-power-use-by-cable-devices.html?_r=0
Summary - recently The Energy Department decided that there should be cutbacks on the so called "vampire" energy that is taken for your devices even when they are off. Keeping things like TVs plugged in, even if they're off can result in a higher energy intake. Some are saying that these devices draw almost as much energy when they are off as when they are turned on. In order to cut energy usage, companies will be required to change software to reduce energy used in sleep mode. This should save consumers overall over 1 billion a year. This should decrease energy consumption by up to 20 percent by 2017.
Reaction - I think this is a good idea, and that it should have come about sooner. I know that there have been previous agreements in an attempt to cut this unnecessary power usage, but it seems to be to be a simple solution to make the companies themselves change software to reduce the energy usage when the device is off. What is the need for power being used when you are not even using the device. Growing up my mom always told me to unplug the electrical devices I was not using because she wanted to save money, she was right. I hope that this plan actually actually happens, because the amount energy that our country uses annually is crazy, any help is welcome.
Connection - Groups like the NRDC and the Energy Department are large groups that have a say in the government. The people see the environment as a huge important issue, so they join groups that share their views. Those groups then can affect the government. In this way our government can be described as pluralistic, the large groups with the same beliefs affecting the government policy.
Summary - recently The Energy Department decided that there should be cutbacks on the so called "vampire" energy that is taken for your devices even when they are off. Keeping things like TVs plugged in, even if they're off can result in a higher energy intake. Some are saying that these devices draw almost as much energy when they are off as when they are turned on. In order to cut energy usage, companies will be required to change software to reduce energy used in sleep mode. This should save consumers overall over 1 billion a year. This should decrease energy consumption by up to 20 percent by 2017.
Reaction - I think this is a good idea, and that it should have come about sooner. I know that there have been previous agreements in an attempt to cut this unnecessary power usage, but it seems to be to be a simple solution to make the companies themselves change software to reduce the energy usage when the device is off. What is the need for power being used when you are not even using the device. Growing up my mom always told me to unplug the electrical devices I was not using because she wanted to save money, she was right. I hope that this plan actually actually happens, because the amount energy that our country uses annually is crazy, any help is welcome.
Connection - Groups like the NRDC and the Energy Department are large groups that have a say in the government. The people see the environment as a huge important issue, so they join groups that share their views. Those groups then can affect the government. In this way our government can be described as pluralistic, the large groups with the same beliefs affecting the government policy.
Monday, January 20, 2014
William Fawcett - Social Welfare 2
Obamas Talk Education and Inequality at Summit
Summary: Both the President and First Lady explained their plans for increasing student accessibility to college Thursday during a summit with more than eighty education and business leaders. "We want to restore the essential promise of opportunity and upward mobility that’s at the heart of America," the President said, "The notion that if you work hard, you can get ahead, you can improve your situation in life, you can make something of yourself.” Obama has expressed intent to use both conventional legislative processes when Congress is feeling cooperative and executive orders when legislators aren't.
Reaction: The adage "a college degree is the new high school diploma", based on the career fairs I've been to, seems to be holding true. For the majority of job openings out there, some post-secondary education is necessary. Low-income students have trouble enough staying in high school as is, but for many, going to college is impossible.
Connection: This article could be construed as either an economic policy or a social policy. There have been many studies on the economic impact of higher education, and many see college aid in terms of the economic benefits, rather than in terms of social issues. I believe this article to be Social/Welfare, however, because it focused more on creating opportunities for the good of the people and thus the nation, rather than the economic benefits it would have.
Summary: Both the President and First Lady explained their plans for increasing student accessibility to college Thursday during a summit with more than eighty education and business leaders. "We want to restore the essential promise of opportunity and upward mobility that’s at the heart of America," the President said, "The notion that if you work hard, you can get ahead, you can improve your situation in life, you can make something of yourself.” Obama has expressed intent to use both conventional legislative processes when Congress is feeling cooperative and executive orders when legislators aren't.
Reaction: The adage "a college degree is the new high school diploma", based on the career fairs I've been to, seems to be holding true. For the majority of job openings out there, some post-secondary education is necessary. Low-income students have trouble enough staying in high school as is, but for many, going to college is impossible.
Connection: This article could be construed as either an economic policy or a social policy. There have been many studies on the economic impact of higher education, and many see college aid in terms of the economic benefits, rather than in terms of social issues. I believe this article to be Social/Welfare, however, because it focused more on creating opportunities for the good of the people and thus the nation, rather than the economic benefits it would have.
Christian Steffen (Health Care and Environment) Post 2
Law's Expanded Medicaid Coverage Brings a Surge in Sign-Ups
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/health/peace-of-mind-is-first-benefit-for-many-now-getting-medicaid.html?ref=healthcarereform
Summary- The Affordable Care Act has definitely been given life in recent weeks. As new slips were mailed out securing Americans with new medicaid numbers, the numbers for people using medicaid have in a word, surged. The poor of the country all at once began to receive their letters letting them know they qualified for medicaid help. This allowed many Americans to have health care coverage when they previously did not have the funds. There was and still is some resistance to Obama and his health care act in many states. However, apparently the peoples need for health insurance far outweighs their pride and everyone in need eventually gets covered under medicaid. Uninsured people are more likely to become sicker and die younger according to the article and America is relatively low on the list of longevity and health.
Reaction- Although it may seem great that more people are becoming healthy and covered under the Affordable Care Act as well as many Americans no longer considering suicidal thoughts, i do not agree with it. In fact, i strongly disagree with it. It is easy for the democratic governor of West Virginia to expand medicaid coverage and seem like a great guy. Why not provide coverage to the entire world if it gives such a large benefit to everyone? The answer is it doesn't. Who pays for the increased longevity and health of poor Americans. The answer is, America does, and more than likely Americans that do not require medicaid pay for it. That almost doesn't seem fair and that is because it isn't. Successful or otherwise American citizens should not have to pay for the health of poorer citizens.
Connection- I can connect the Affordable Care Act and this article to the communist governments in Cuba and around the world. I can say this because both the Affordable Care Act and the communist regimes around the world have many similarities. One, both are forced upon the people who ultimately, do not get a direct say in the act, and do not have a say in the communist takeover likewise. Although it may be a bit of a stretch, there is a second good similarity. Both are negatives for the liberty of the involved country. Communism takes away personal business and many personal liberties just as the Affordable Care Act unjustly taxes Americans to pay for treatments they likely will not get. Both take away liberties of those involved.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/health/peace-of-mind-is-first-benefit-for-many-now-getting-medicaid.html?ref=healthcarereform
Summary- The Affordable Care Act has definitely been given life in recent weeks. As new slips were mailed out securing Americans with new medicaid numbers, the numbers for people using medicaid have in a word, surged. The poor of the country all at once began to receive their letters letting them know they qualified for medicaid help. This allowed many Americans to have health care coverage when they previously did not have the funds. There was and still is some resistance to Obama and his health care act in many states. However, apparently the peoples need for health insurance far outweighs their pride and everyone in need eventually gets covered under medicaid. Uninsured people are more likely to become sicker and die younger according to the article and America is relatively low on the list of longevity and health.
Reaction- Although it may seem great that more people are becoming healthy and covered under the Affordable Care Act as well as many Americans no longer considering suicidal thoughts, i do not agree with it. In fact, i strongly disagree with it. It is easy for the democratic governor of West Virginia to expand medicaid coverage and seem like a great guy. Why not provide coverage to the entire world if it gives such a large benefit to everyone? The answer is it doesn't. Who pays for the increased longevity and health of poor Americans. The answer is, America does, and more than likely Americans that do not require medicaid pay for it. That almost doesn't seem fair and that is because it isn't. Successful or otherwise American citizens should not have to pay for the health of poorer citizens.
Connection- I can connect the Affordable Care Act and this article to the communist governments in Cuba and around the world. I can say this because both the Affordable Care Act and the communist regimes around the world have many similarities. One, both are forced upon the people who ultimately, do not get a direct say in the act, and do not have a say in the communist takeover likewise. Although it may be a bit of a stretch, there is a second good similarity. Both are negatives for the liberty of the involved country. Communism takes away personal business and many personal liberties just as the Affordable Care Act unjustly taxes Americans to pay for treatments they likely will not get. Both take away liberties of those involved.
Hannah Chin - Small Businesses Changing Hands at a Rapid Clip - Economics 2
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-business/small-businesses-changing-hands-at-a-rapid-clip/2014/01/14/f59bc9f2-7d27-11e3-93c1-0e888170b723_story.html?wprss=rss_business&_monetaClick=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--
Summary:
The sales of small businesses are booming as we enter the new year. More than 7,000 small businesses have changed administrative hands and that is up 50% since the recession began in 2008. In 2013, buyers noted that they saw potential in small companies and plan to purchase these businesses as a result of a slowly improving national economy. In addition to a comeback economy, more baby boomer entreprenuers are retiring and looking to sell their firms to new buyers. 3/4 brokers surveyed by BizBuySell, an online economic research company, expect small business sales to continue to increase and become sustained throughout 2014. Last December, hiring by small companies reached its fastest pace since 2006. According to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, 86% of small business owners believe that their firms will prosper in 2014.
Reaction:
This article was very informative and personal to me because my dad is starting his own small business. At first, I was worried about how he would start the company and if he could sustain the business if the recession was still in place. However, I now understand that the economy is slowly bouncing back and it is much easier to maintain a constant revenue and be successful. Retired buyers are looking to sell their firms to new brokers, which will help to further strengthen our economy by increasing overall sales. This writer had a lot of statistics from notable resources which made the article accurate and professional.
Connection:
The United States government has always promoted trade and business throughout the nation. We maximize entrepreneurship and support innovation in our economy by connecting small businesses to the government. One way the local governments do this is by holding open public forums during City Hall meetings to share concerns regarding local economic issues. Local and regional governments have also grown away from outsourcing goods and materials and trying instead to use as many local businesses for government contracts as possible. A way that the federal government works towards assisting small firms is through the SBA, United States Small Business Association. This organization connects small business owners to government officials and allows them the opportunity to voice concerns or ask questions about economic policy.
Summary:
The sales of small businesses are booming as we enter the new year. More than 7,000 small businesses have changed administrative hands and that is up 50% since the recession began in 2008. In 2013, buyers noted that they saw potential in small companies and plan to purchase these businesses as a result of a slowly improving national economy. In addition to a comeback economy, more baby boomer entreprenuers are retiring and looking to sell their firms to new buyers. 3/4 brokers surveyed by BizBuySell, an online economic research company, expect small business sales to continue to increase and become sustained throughout 2014. Last December, hiring by small companies reached its fastest pace since 2006. According to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, 86% of small business owners believe that their firms will prosper in 2014.
Reaction:
This article was very informative and personal to me because my dad is starting his own small business. At first, I was worried about how he would start the company and if he could sustain the business if the recession was still in place. However, I now understand that the economy is slowly bouncing back and it is much easier to maintain a constant revenue and be successful. Retired buyers are looking to sell their firms to new brokers, which will help to further strengthen our economy by increasing overall sales. This writer had a lot of statistics from notable resources which made the article accurate and professional.
Connection:
The United States government has always promoted trade and business throughout the nation. We maximize entrepreneurship and support innovation in our economy by connecting small businesses to the government. One way the local governments do this is by holding open public forums during City Hall meetings to share concerns regarding local economic issues. Local and regional governments have also grown away from outsourcing goods and materials and trying instead to use as many local businesses for government contracts as possible. A way that the federal government works towards assisting small firms is through the SBA, United States Small Business Association. This organization connects small business owners to government officials and allows them the opportunity to voice concerns or ask questions about economic policy.
Sarah Flynn. The real health care 'war' on the young.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/the-real-health-care-war-on-the-young/?_php=true&_type=blogs&ref=healthcarereform&_r=0
Summary: health care is hurriting the young & will especially impact you if you were born between 1977-1995. But the biggest losers in the Obama care battle will be these people's children & grandchildren. Men are more victimized by Obamacare also. There is an adjusted community rating that will hurt people of every age under this healthy care because they can vary their premiums by age premiums may no longer be based on health. Women's healthcare was almost 70% higher then men's because they bare children, they now have gender numeral rates, so essentially men's rates are transferring to women's help.
Reaction: this non-age- adjusted rate seems unfair. You should have to pay for what your going to use. If your a women it makes sence for you to pay more because you are going to bare children more then likely. And if you can't then you should be able to enter that in to your health care and they will give you a lower price. It doesn't make sence for men and women to have the same price. It also doesn't make sence for all ages to have the same price your health care should change for you age and gender.
Connection: conservatives would agree with this being unfair because they believe in spending less on the poor & keeping taxes low. They wouldn't like that the poor are getting health insurance off of their tax dollars.
Summary: health care is hurriting the young & will especially impact you if you were born between 1977-1995. But the biggest losers in the Obama care battle will be these people's children & grandchildren. Men are more victimized by Obamacare also. There is an adjusted community rating that will hurt people of every age under this healthy care because they can vary their premiums by age premiums may no longer be based on health. Women's healthcare was almost 70% higher then men's because they bare children, they now have gender numeral rates, so essentially men's rates are transferring to women's help.
Reaction: this non-age- adjusted rate seems unfair. You should have to pay for what your going to use. If your a women it makes sence for you to pay more because you are going to bare children more then likely. And if you can't then you should be able to enter that in to your health care and they will give you a lower price. It doesn't make sence for men and women to have the same price. It also doesn't make sence for all ages to have the same price your health care should change for you age and gender.
Connection: conservatives would agree with this being unfair because they believe in spending less on the poor & keeping taxes low. They wouldn't like that the poor are getting health insurance off of their tax dollars.
Hunter Williams Economy: From Worse to Awful
Read more at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-pacitti/from-worse-to-awful_b_4473855.html
Summary: Ever since December 2007 (beginning of Great Recession), a violent form of American capitalism has emerged from sky high unemployment rates and poor policy making. The unemployment rate has been over 7% for the the last five years, the highest rate of unemployment since the Great Depression. The weakening of law labor act, which decreases of workers unionizing and bargain collectively did not stimulate any economic growth or peak. Union membership has fallen from 29% in 1962 to 11% in 2013. Deunionization indirectly crippled the economy. Big corporations could simply export a full-time workers job offshore for a cheaper part-time agreement between the other individual and the corporation. Thus, striking fear in the American workers courage to even ask for a raise. Long term unemployment is evident, and so is the unemployment rate. The longer an individual does not have a job, the probability of finding an occupation drops from 30% to a mere 7%, a very terrifying statistic. The 58% of individuals who actually are employed face employment insecurity and disappearance of their good paying jobs. Downward mobility is now considered to be normal and accepted. Without massive policy reconsideration, insecurity, long-term unemployment, inequality among the masses, and flat incomes will dominate the American Economy.
Connection: Are all policies good policies to enforce? Of course not, but recently it is evident that many policies that have been passed and implemented into the American economy were not exactly the "golden apple" of economic policies. Political will needs to be evident when policy creation comes into play. American politicians and American workers are influenced by the decisions of the elite class. By putting massive influence in the elite class's hands, will not help sustain a healthy economy for the general population.
Reaction: The percentages I saw while reading this article made me self-aware of exactly how bad the economy is. Shocking unemployment rates and massive long term unemployment can cripple any economy. The offshore jobs are not stimulating any economic growth. The sad thing is, it's almost as if the economy is out of the hands of the people, because the people/workers of America are so dependent on major policies.
Summary: Ever since December 2007 (beginning of Great Recession), a violent form of American capitalism has emerged from sky high unemployment rates and poor policy making. The unemployment rate has been over 7% for the the last five years, the highest rate of unemployment since the Great Depression. The weakening of law labor act, which decreases of workers unionizing and bargain collectively did not stimulate any economic growth or peak. Union membership has fallen from 29% in 1962 to 11% in 2013. Deunionization indirectly crippled the economy. Big corporations could simply export a full-time workers job offshore for a cheaper part-time agreement between the other individual and the corporation. Thus, striking fear in the American workers courage to even ask for a raise. Long term unemployment is evident, and so is the unemployment rate. The longer an individual does not have a job, the probability of finding an occupation drops from 30% to a mere 7%, a very terrifying statistic. The 58% of individuals who actually are employed face employment insecurity and disappearance of their good paying jobs. Downward mobility is now considered to be normal and accepted. Without massive policy reconsideration, insecurity, long-term unemployment, inequality among the masses, and flat incomes will dominate the American Economy.
Connection: Are all policies good policies to enforce? Of course not, but recently it is evident that many policies that have been passed and implemented into the American economy were not exactly the "golden apple" of economic policies. Political will needs to be evident when policy creation comes into play. American politicians and American workers are influenced by the decisions of the elite class. By putting massive influence in the elite class's hands, will not help sustain a healthy economy for the general population.
Reaction: The percentages I saw while reading this article made me self-aware of exactly how bad the economy is. Shocking unemployment rates and massive long term unemployment can cripple any economy. The offshore jobs are not stimulating any economic growth. The sad thing is, it's almost as if the economy is out of the hands of the people, because the people/workers of America are so dependent on major policies.
Jenn Campbell Economics: Raising the Minimum Wage: Good Ethics and Good Economics
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-frederica-wilson/raising-the-minimum-wage-_1_b_3845550.html
Summary:
Our nation's minimum wage is one of the lowest in the developed world, researchers have stated that for single parents receiving minimum wage, providing food, shelter, and gas for themselves and others is impossible even working 40 hours a week and 2 jobs. The article stated that raising the minimum wage would help ordinary Americans and the economy. It is a cycle, when employers don't pay living wage the taxpayers have to pay for extra benefits like Medicaid, food stamps, and housing assistance, and that causes people to tighten their belts and splurge less leaving small businesses with less money to give to their employees, "When corporations fail to pay, the economy fails to grow.". According to the Economic Policy Institute sixty percent of Americans workers earn less than they did thirteen years. So the solution is seemingly simple, invest in the low-income workers and the economy will slowly but surely benefit.
Reaction:
I honestly can't believe the government has not done anything about this yet. I do think that even if the government started now it would be slow coming but I think the government is currently slipping when it comes to defending our natural rights, this being a prime example. The government's only job is to best help the people, to govern and protect. The lower class people are paying for their inactivity and they are the majority of our nation. This is unacceptable to me because the government is in its rights to raise the minimum wage but it hasn't even though this has been a problem for too long.
Connection:
Liberals would support this solution because they believe in spending more on the poor, and taxing the rich. Liberals would also support this because they believe the government should be the regulator in public interest. This issue could be considered public as well as national interest. By helping the lower class public, it would help the overall public by stabilizing the national economy.
Summary:
Our nation's minimum wage is one of the lowest in the developed world, researchers have stated that for single parents receiving minimum wage, providing food, shelter, and gas for themselves and others is impossible even working 40 hours a week and 2 jobs. The article stated that raising the minimum wage would help ordinary Americans and the economy. It is a cycle, when employers don't pay living wage the taxpayers have to pay for extra benefits like Medicaid, food stamps, and housing assistance, and that causes people to tighten their belts and splurge less leaving small businesses with less money to give to their employees, "When corporations fail to pay, the economy fails to grow.". According to the Economic Policy Institute sixty percent of Americans workers earn less than they did thirteen years. So the solution is seemingly simple, invest in the low-income workers and the economy will slowly but surely benefit.
Reaction:
I honestly can't believe the government has not done anything about this yet. I do think that even if the government started now it would be slow coming but I think the government is currently slipping when it comes to defending our natural rights, this being a prime example. The government's only job is to best help the people, to govern and protect. The lower class people are paying for their inactivity and they are the majority of our nation. This is unacceptable to me because the government is in its rights to raise the minimum wage but it hasn't even though this has been a problem for too long.
Connection:
Liberals would support this solution because they believe in spending more on the poor, and taxing the rich. Liberals would also support this because they believe the government should be the regulator in public interest. This issue could be considered public as well as national interest. By helping the lower class public, it would help the overall public by stabilizing the national economy.
Haidyn Hank (Healthcare/Environment) - "Severe Drought Grows Worse in California"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/18/us/as-californias-drought-deepens-a-sense-of-dread-grows.html?ref=science&_r=0
Summary:
The drought in California continues to get worse, becoming comparable to the severe drought California suffered in the 1970's. Cattle ranchers have had to move their livestock or even sell half of it because of the lack of precipitation. This lack of precipitation is also causing California to enforce strict regulations on the use of the water that is available to them. Wildfires are also becoming a problem, which is strange for California in the winter because typically, the ground is too wet to even ignite a campfire. California's ski resorts are suffering as well because there is not enough snow to make use of in the mountains. These problems that California is facing usually don't have to be dealt with until the middle of summer and are causing many difficulties. According to Jeannine Jones, because this drought has become so severe, "it allows the governor to waive laws or regulations and expedite some funding" under state laws. This does not provide large amounts of money or enough federal funding though. The drought is affecting the economy because farmers and cattle ranchers are losing much of their money due to dried up land and having to sell some of their livestock. According to Westlands Water District officials, "Without more water, an estimated 200,000 acres of prime agriculture land will go unplanted in Fresno County." The cattle ranchers that are used to feeding their livestock rain-fed grass now have to feed their store-bought hay or get rid of some of the livestock. The majority of California, around 25 million people, gets their water from a snowpack of the Sierra Nevada. The snowpack, typically abundant in snow, is now only a foot tall. The drought has become so severe that some restaurants are now banned from serving their customers water unless they ask for it. Citizens of Folsom Lake were also asked to reduce their water usage by 20 percent. This lack of precipitation is due to a high-pressure zone that goes from Oregon to Mexico along the coast. The high-pressure zone blocks storm systems from reaching the ground. This contributes to not only the drought in California, but also to the extreme cold weather patches in the Midwest and Northeast.
Reaction:
I think it is strange how in such a seemingly advanced country we still haven't found any good ways to deal with drought. I also can see how this is probably hurting California's economy because the farmers and cattle ranchers aren't able to do much, if anything because their land is dried up and they have to sell some of their livestock. They are also probably losing money from having to put out all of the wildfires caused by this drought and dealing with any damage done. I also didn't realize that a lot of California's water comes from a snowpack in the mountains. I had no idea that the same thing that was causing a drought in California was causing all of the cold that we are experiencing here in Iowa.
Connection:
Like the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada provides water to millions of Californians, it is the federal government's job to help give necessary provisions, as well as some advantages, to the American people. The snowpack provides water, a necessary nutrient to the body, and the federal government is in charge of making laws and restrictions to help us maintain order and help us keep peace and take care of ourselves as well as our environment. Each currently play an important role in the lives of the Californians as they struggle with the severe drought that is causing much difficulty in their daily routines. The federal government is trying to sustain the peace and find ways to overcome the drought as the water supply in the mountains dwindles.
Summary:
The drought in California continues to get worse, becoming comparable to the severe drought California suffered in the 1970's. Cattle ranchers have had to move their livestock or even sell half of it because of the lack of precipitation. This lack of precipitation is also causing California to enforce strict regulations on the use of the water that is available to them. Wildfires are also becoming a problem, which is strange for California in the winter because typically, the ground is too wet to even ignite a campfire. California's ski resorts are suffering as well because there is not enough snow to make use of in the mountains. These problems that California is facing usually don't have to be dealt with until the middle of summer and are causing many difficulties. According to Jeannine Jones, because this drought has become so severe, "it allows the governor to waive laws or regulations and expedite some funding" under state laws. This does not provide large amounts of money or enough federal funding though. The drought is affecting the economy because farmers and cattle ranchers are losing much of their money due to dried up land and having to sell some of their livestock. According to Westlands Water District officials, "Without more water, an estimated 200,000 acres of prime agriculture land will go unplanted in Fresno County." The cattle ranchers that are used to feeding their livestock rain-fed grass now have to feed their store-bought hay or get rid of some of the livestock. The majority of California, around 25 million people, gets their water from a snowpack of the Sierra Nevada. The snowpack, typically abundant in snow, is now only a foot tall. The drought has become so severe that some restaurants are now banned from serving their customers water unless they ask for it. Citizens of Folsom Lake were also asked to reduce their water usage by 20 percent. This lack of precipitation is due to a high-pressure zone that goes from Oregon to Mexico along the coast. The high-pressure zone blocks storm systems from reaching the ground. This contributes to not only the drought in California, but also to the extreme cold weather patches in the Midwest and Northeast.
Reaction:
I think it is strange how in such a seemingly advanced country we still haven't found any good ways to deal with drought. I also can see how this is probably hurting California's economy because the farmers and cattle ranchers aren't able to do much, if anything because their land is dried up and they have to sell some of their livestock. They are also probably losing money from having to put out all of the wildfires caused by this drought and dealing with any damage done. I also didn't realize that a lot of California's water comes from a snowpack in the mountains. I had no idea that the same thing that was causing a drought in California was causing all of the cold that we are experiencing here in Iowa.
Connection:
Like the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada provides water to millions of Californians, it is the federal government's job to help give necessary provisions, as well as some advantages, to the American people. The snowpack provides water, a necessary nutrient to the body, and the federal government is in charge of making laws and restrictions to help us maintain order and help us keep peace and take care of ourselves as well as our environment. Each currently play an important role in the lives of the Californians as they struggle with the severe drought that is causing much difficulty in their daily routines. The federal government is trying to sustain the peace and find ways to overcome the drought as the water supply in the mountains dwindles.
David Niska Economy: Clean Air Is For Everyone
Summary: Since the earliest days of vehicles and factories, there's a growing number of pollutants entering our atmosphere. With the increasing production and use of cars and labor-saving goods produced by factories, people have been less worried about how the exhaust of their product is being handled. Cars for example give off sulfur dioxide which can kill animals, pollute lakes, and can even break down brick and stone structures as these gases turn into sulfuric acid. So with every new model of car introduced or factory built, there have been pollution regulations that the makers have to meet. The Clean Air Act of 1970 is primary law that charges the Department of Transportation(DOT) with authority to establish regulations on automobiles so as to reduce polluting exhaust emissions. Then in 1990, Congress passed a revised version of the Clean Air Act which had very strict regulations on cars, oil refineries, chemical plants, and coal-fired utility plants. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 also permitted utility companies with the right to engage in emissions trading, that is, the right to buy and trade rights to pollute on the open market. This allowed less efficient operators the option of buying a right to emit certain gases from those operators with more efficient plants. Over time, these rights have been increasingly expensive or difficult to acquire. This has encouraged more investment in the technology that results in less harmful emissions at their source. Regardless of how weird that may seem, the air we breath now is significantly better than it was thirty years ago.
Reaction: I am very glad to see that Congress has passed these regulations so that we can have clean air healthy air to breath. In many developing countries, including China, such requirements have not yet been implemented or enforced such as in the US. The air quality in these countries is not only unpleasant, but it is unhealthy to our bodies and our environment. I think that letting people buy the right to pollute is a bit of an oxymoron, but regardless of that, it has worked as a transition strategy until newer technologies replace obsolete facilities. In the end, individual people still have a social responsibility to keep the air that we breath as fresh as it can be. This includes buying efficient cars, keeping them in their proper operational state, and avoiding unnecessary practices such as leaf burning in the fall.
Connection: The Framers of the Constitution looked out for our Human Rights and wanted them to be very prevalent throughout history and today. Since breathing air is a Human Right, it would make sense to wisely regulate the pollution entering our atmosphere.
Reaction: I am very glad to see that Congress has passed these regulations so that we can have clean air healthy air to breath. In many developing countries, including China, such requirements have not yet been implemented or enforced such as in the US. The air quality in these countries is not only unpleasant, but it is unhealthy to our bodies and our environment. I think that letting people buy the right to pollute is a bit of an oxymoron, but regardless of that, it has worked as a transition strategy until newer technologies replace obsolete facilities. In the end, individual people still have a social responsibility to keep the air that we breath as fresh as it can be. This includes buying efficient cars, keeping them in their proper operational state, and avoiding unnecessary practices such as leaf burning in the fall.
Connection: The Framers of the Constitution looked out for our Human Rights and wanted them to be very prevalent throughout history and today. Since breathing air is a Human Right, it would make sense to wisely regulate the pollution entering our atmosphere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)