10/22/2013
Unit 2
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24626151
So this article just talked about how the expected amount of jobs that were handed out were lower than was expected for the month of October. These results only came out recently due to the effects of the government shutdown. And now, apparently the results of the data collected in both October and November will both be inaccurate, due to the government shutdown.
So apparently stocks are on a rise, but jobs aren't growing as much as we have expected. Is this just me, or does this seem like a bad thing? Sure. the unemployment rate has been going down, and continues to go down, but it is also slowing down. What if now it starts to go up again, and there is nothing we can do about it?
The economy did not respond well to the shutdown, it was most definitely not a good thing. So i have a question... If the government shuts down again in January, what is going to happen to our economy?
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Monday, October 21, 2013
open for business
10/21/2013
Unit 2
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/government-reopens-thursday-after-congress-passes-budget-deal-raises-debt-limit/2013/10/17/dbe7889a-371b-11e3-80c6-7e6dd8d22d8f_story.html
Well, the government is finally back on track, we finally have a government in full service, at least for the time being. The agreement that they finally made was not a permanent one, it basically reopened the government, but did not make many permanent changes. The one big change it did make was ensuring that those who tried to take advantage of the Affordable Care Act when they did not really need it, would not receive the benefits which they did not deserve.
The debt ceiling was raised enough to be okay until January 15, 2014. Only time will tell what is going to happen next. Sure our government is back in business, but for how long? Will it remain in business, or will the very end result of this now law be another shutdown? The article clearly states that another shutdown would be disastrous, at least in most people's opinions. The article also called the shutdown meaningless and a waste of time, stating that the USA cannot afford to make the same mistake again, they just can't.
The economy was badly injured by the government shutdown, and rebounding is not going to be an easy thing, but it is possible. It may take us many years, but we should be able to eventually remove the debt we now have, so long as both houses of congress work together to do what is right for this country.
All in all, the republicans would have been better off if the government shutdown had never occurred The government shutdown happened because they were determined to defund Obamacare, and were unwilling to compromise at all. In the end, the results do not look good for the Republican party. Popular support has gone down, and while many have learned their lesson, some are determined to keep fighting. Basically, to keep hurting the Republican party
Unit 2
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/government-reopens-thursday-after-congress-passes-budget-deal-raises-debt-limit/2013/10/17/dbe7889a-371b-11e3-80c6-7e6dd8d22d8f_story.html
Well, the government is finally back on track, we finally have a government in full service, at least for the time being. The agreement that they finally made was not a permanent one, it basically reopened the government, but did not make many permanent changes. The one big change it did make was ensuring that those who tried to take advantage of the Affordable Care Act when they did not really need it, would not receive the benefits which they did not deserve.
The debt ceiling was raised enough to be okay until January 15, 2014. Only time will tell what is going to happen next. Sure our government is back in business, but for how long? Will it remain in business, or will the very end result of this now law be another shutdown? The article clearly states that another shutdown would be disastrous, at least in most people's opinions. The article also called the shutdown meaningless and a waste of time, stating that the USA cannot afford to make the same mistake again, they just can't.
The economy was badly injured by the government shutdown, and rebounding is not going to be an easy thing, but it is possible. It may take us many years, but we should be able to eventually remove the debt we now have, so long as both houses of congress work together to do what is right for this country.
All in all, the republicans would have been better off if the government shutdown had never occurred The government shutdown happened because they were determined to defund Obamacare, and were unwilling to compromise at all. In the end, the results do not look good for the Republican party. Popular support has gone down, and while many have learned their lesson, some are determined to keep fighting. Basically, to keep hurting the Republican party
Sunday, October 20, 2013
'catch me if you can'
10/20/2013
Unit 2
www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/1008/Defying-government-shutdown-national-park-visitors-play-catch-me-if-you-can-video
"'Not only are these closures unnecessary, they run contrary to law.' he [Nick Pinizzotto] said. 'This is 'political theatre' at its very worst.'"
This article talks a lot about differences in this shutdown, and the shutdowns of '95 and '96. The government shut down a lot more monuments and parks than it did in those shut downs. Which raises a very simple question: why are they shutting down things that they didn't shutdown last time. In my opinion there are a couple of theories...
1) This shutdown was worse than previous ones, and we are so far in debt that only the most important expenses could be paid.
2) as the article suggest, the government is doing it out of spite, as a way to show their power, and how much we need government.
Dealing with the first one, it is a valid point. We are extremely far in debt. Now, before Ethan goes on a rant about how the debt we have is not as big as it seems due to several factors, I'm not saying that the debt that we have is unmanageable, because it isn't, it is still possible for us to get out of it. Yet, the fact remains, that we are in debt, and perhaps this is why the government decided to close down more things.
The Second, I think is probably closer to the truth. Politics is a big game. In order to win the game, you/your party needs to have the most power. you gain power by doing things the people approve of, you lose if by doing things against public views. I know this is really basic, but it is what it is. Both Republicans and Democrats want to have the most power, which is what led to this shutdown. But, the government doesn't want the populace to revolt, and start an entirely new government (although that is unlikely to happen), so they showed how necessary government is to having our economy run. Showing, that when they are shutdown, the economy suffers.
So, I think that those who are playing 'catch me if you can' with the government, are only expressing their desire to still have the rights. They don't think government has the right to restrict them from public lands, and frankly agree. The government has no right to stop us from having our rights. I don't agree with the way the protesters went about it, I think they were close to the right track.
Unit 2
www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/1008/Defying-government-shutdown-national-park-visitors-play-catch-me-if-you-can-video
"'Not only are these closures unnecessary, they run contrary to law.' he [Nick Pinizzotto] said. 'This is 'political theatre' at its very worst.'"
This article talks a lot about differences in this shutdown, and the shutdowns of '95 and '96. The government shut down a lot more monuments and parks than it did in those shut downs. Which raises a very simple question: why are they shutting down things that they didn't shutdown last time. In my opinion there are a couple of theories...
1) This shutdown was worse than previous ones, and we are so far in debt that only the most important expenses could be paid.
2) as the article suggest, the government is doing it out of spite, as a way to show their power, and how much we need government.
Dealing with the first one, it is a valid point. We are extremely far in debt. Now, before Ethan goes on a rant about how the debt we have is not as big as it seems due to several factors, I'm not saying that the debt that we have is unmanageable, because it isn't, it is still possible for us to get out of it. Yet, the fact remains, that we are in debt, and perhaps this is why the government decided to close down more things.
The Second, I think is probably closer to the truth. Politics is a big game. In order to win the game, you/your party needs to have the most power. you gain power by doing things the people approve of, you lose if by doing things against public views. I know this is really basic, but it is what it is. Both Republicans and Democrats want to have the most power, which is what led to this shutdown. But, the government doesn't want the populace to revolt, and start an entirely new government (although that is unlikely to happen), so they showed how necessary government is to having our economy run. Showing, that when they are shutdown, the economy suffers.
So, I think that those who are playing 'catch me if you can' with the government, are only expressing their desire to still have the rights. They don't think government has the right to restrict them from public lands, and frankly agree. The government has no right to stop us from having our rights. I don't agree with the way the protesters went about it, I think they were close to the right track.
military death benefits
10/20/2013
Unit 2
www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2013/1009/Government-shutdown-affecting-military-death-benefits-Charity-steps-up
Now, this is just disturbing. So according to this story, a bill was passed about a week before insuring that the military would continue to be paid, but military death benefits were not included in this. Jay Carney says that lawmakers were told of this, but did nothing about it.
Thankfully, the families of those who had died in combat were not left long without the benefits that they deserved so much. The Fisher House foundation approached the government, and the government were happy to allow the charity to pay the death benefits while the government was shut down. Congress promised that they would be paid back once the government reopened.
All i want to say really on this is shame on the government, for making it necessary for a charity to step in to insure that the families of those who had made the ultimate sacrifice were not left without any means to support themselves. The men and women who die every day in the wars we fight leave behind loved ones, who need to be able to grieve for the one they lost without worrying about money. Bravo for the charity, to have the not only think of filling in for the government when they were negligent of their duty, but for doing so. The Fisher house Foundation did not have to step in, but they did. The government wasn't able to reach out to anyone, for help for this solution, but when this charity reached out, they accepted. Not only did they accept it, but they didn't seem to feel as if they had done anything wrong. there are some things, that no matter what happens, should continue to happen. Death benefits for military is one of those things, and because of a third party, they did happen.
Unit 2
www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2013/1009/Government-shutdown-affecting-military-death-benefits-Charity-steps-up
Now, this is just disturbing. So according to this story, a bill was passed about a week before insuring that the military would continue to be paid, but military death benefits were not included in this. Jay Carney says that lawmakers were told of this, but did nothing about it.
Thankfully, the families of those who had died in combat were not left long without the benefits that they deserved so much. The Fisher House foundation approached the government, and the government were happy to allow the charity to pay the death benefits while the government was shut down. Congress promised that they would be paid back once the government reopened.
All i want to say really on this is shame on the government, for making it necessary for a charity to step in to insure that the families of those who had made the ultimate sacrifice were not left without any means to support themselves. The men and women who die every day in the wars we fight leave behind loved ones, who need to be able to grieve for the one they lost without worrying about money. Bravo for the charity, to have the not only think of filling in for the government when they were negligent of their duty, but for doing so. The Fisher house Foundation did not have to step in, but they did. The government wasn't able to reach out to anyone, for help for this solution, but when this charity reached out, they accepted. Not only did they accept it, but they didn't seem to feel as if they had done anything wrong. there are some things, that no matter what happens, should continue to happen. Death benefits for military is one of those things, and because of a third party, they did happen.
states and national parks
10/20/2013
Unit 2
www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=130&sid=27191074&title=feds-will-let-states-pay-to-reopen-national-parks
I am really glad, that during the shutdown, the federal government decided to allow the national parks to open.Governor Herbert estimated that during the over a week that the national parks shutting had impacted the economy by 100 million dollars. The government waited that long to allow states to pay to reopen the national parks within their borders, and for what reason? The article pointed out that they were just playing a political game, and i don't know about all of you, but that just makes me angry. They are costing our economy money, and wasting money that might have been put to good use. The government shutdown caused a lot of problems, and this was one of them. I was very happy that Utah decided to pay to have the National Parks in our state reopened. We have five national parks in our state, and many people in our state depend on visitors to our national parks to support themselves. The article mentioned that it was estimated that 76 million dollars in tourist revenue was lost during the time the parks were shutdown.
Basically, I get tired of all the political games people play, instead of doing what is best for the american people....
Unit 2
www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=130&sid=27191074&title=feds-will-let-states-pay-to-reopen-national-parks
I am really glad, that during the shutdown, the federal government decided to allow the national parks to open.Governor Herbert estimated that during the over a week that the national parks shutting had impacted the economy by 100 million dollars. The government waited that long to allow states to pay to reopen the national parks within their borders, and for what reason? The article pointed out that they were just playing a political game, and i don't know about all of you, but that just makes me angry. They are costing our economy money, and wasting money that might have been put to good use. The government shutdown caused a lot of problems, and this was one of them. I was very happy that Utah decided to pay to have the National Parks in our state reopened. We have five national parks in our state, and many people in our state depend on visitors to our national parks to support themselves. The article mentioned that it was estimated that 76 million dollars in tourist revenue was lost during the time the parks were shutdown.
Basically, I get tired of all the political games people play, instead of doing what is best for the american people....
corruption in Detroit
10/20/13
Unit 2
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=130&sid=27187503&title=28-years-in-prison-for-corrupt-ex-detroit-mayor
Unit 2
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=130&sid=27187503&title=28-years-in-prison-for-corrupt-ex-detroit-mayor
Detroits ex-mayor was sent to federal prison because he was really corrupt. He was sentenced to 28 years in prison. Kills trick, the mayor, said that he hadn't meant to hurt the people of Detroit, but his apology did not seem sincere to prosecutors.
It is so sad that Kilpatrick was able to be that corrupt, allow that much corruption to spread. How come no one realized what was happening earlier, Detroit is now 18 billion dollars in long-term debt, mainly because of the actions of their corrupt mayor. He even used money meant to help struggling families for yoga, and vacations with his family.
If we could keep better track of this happening, how much better would we be? Corruption is hiding right in front of our eyes, and we do nothing to stop it. People seek their own gain, they seek what they want at a cost to others, and it is so unbearably selfish. If there was no corruption in government, half of the problems our country faces would just dissolve.... It is just sad, that people can do something like that, and almost get away with it, I'm just glad that Kilpatrick received justice
Friday, August 30, 2013
House to Undo Dialysis
August 30, 2013
Unit 1
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/us/politics/health-lobby-tries-to-undo-dialysis-cuts.html?ref=unitedstatespoliticsandgovernment&_r=0
The government ordered a cut on reimbursements for dialysis treatments eight months ago. The proposed cut, has aroused much controversy, and now many who voted for it, are appealing to the administration, to either remove it all together, or at least lessen the amounts. While it is true that many are making millions, by treating dialysis, some clinics are making very little, and some are struggling to remain open.
I can barely believe that this is an issue. Many people are profiting off of our hard-earned tax-dollars, and the reasonable solution, is to not pay them so much for the dialysis treatment. I'm not saying that what they do, shouldn't be covered by government, in fact it should, but a few should not profit off of the masses.When one man, earns 26.8 million dollars in one year, for having dialysis treatment centers, when, for the most part, need for those centers is decreasing, due to in-home dialysis, it is just ridiculous. I understand, that for some, these cuts would be devestating. These cuts would mean that they would have to shut-down their business. Is not this exactly what we want our bicameral legislature to help us avoid? Isn't this what we created them for? To represent us? Are we not a republic, in many ways? They have the authority to levy taxes, and collect them. They have the power to use those taxes in the best way. More than just the power, they have the responsibility to do so. Therefore I suggest, that they not only help out those that are barely making it by, but also cut the amount of money given to those that are just getting rich off of it. so what if lobbyists don't want the cuts, we should do what is best for the people.
Unit 1
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/us/politics/health-lobby-tries-to-undo-dialysis-cuts.html?ref=unitedstatespoliticsandgovernment&_r=0
The government ordered a cut on reimbursements for dialysis treatments eight months ago. The proposed cut, has aroused much controversy, and now many who voted for it, are appealing to the administration, to either remove it all together, or at least lessen the amounts. While it is true that many are making millions, by treating dialysis, some clinics are making very little, and some are struggling to remain open.
I can barely believe that this is an issue. Many people are profiting off of our hard-earned tax-dollars, and the reasonable solution, is to not pay them so much for the dialysis treatment. I'm not saying that what they do, shouldn't be covered by government, in fact it should, but a few should not profit off of the masses.When one man, earns 26.8 million dollars in one year, for having dialysis treatment centers, when, for the most part, need for those centers is decreasing, due to in-home dialysis, it is just ridiculous. I understand, that for some, these cuts would be devestating. These cuts would mean that they would have to shut-down their business. Is not this exactly what we want our bicameral legislature to help us avoid? Isn't this what we created them for? To represent us? Are we not a republic, in many ways? They have the authority to levy taxes, and collect them. They have the power to use those taxes in the best way. More than just the power, they have the responsibility to do so. Therefore I suggest, that they not only help out those that are barely making it by, but also cut the amount of money given to those that are just getting rich off of it. so what if lobbyists don't want the cuts, we should do what is best for the people.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)