January 11, 2104
http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/10/news/economy/jobless-job-market-dropouts/index.html?hpt=po_c2
Unit 5
The unemployed/jobless actually dropped in December, but reportedly for all the wrong reasons. To be counted in the jobless percentage, you have to be actively searching for a job. The reason the unemployment rate decreased is because around 347,000 just gave up looking for jobs, dropping the rate, since they are no longer included in this. The participation rate has not been this low since 1978, and it may even weaker, since more women are participating now than back in the 1978. Also, only 1/3 of teenagers are participating in the job market, one of the lowest rates on record. It is also a problem, because of the 74,000 jobs that were created, the majority of those were only seasonal or temporary hires. In all there was a loss of 20,000 jobs last month.
Just like the previous post on this, this disturbs me. It seems to me, that instead of improving, we are slipping down on an ever slipperier slope. And those who give up on finding a job, aren't helping themselves or the economy. Besides, there is a problem with the types of jobs available. The types of jobs that most people can find, are not very inducing to average person to return to the workforce. Since those types of jobs that are available are normally in the fast food or retail business, and don't pay very well. I just wish there was someway to reverse time, and stop this all from happening. Get people back on track, improve the economy, and just make everything better. In other words, I'm wishing for either a miracle, or magic.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Laws to make statements
January 11, 2014
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/10/house-passes-obamacare-website-security-bill/?hpt=po_c2
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/10/house-passes-obamacare-website-security-bill/?hpt=po_c2
Unit 5
The house and senate both passed a law recently that required the Obama healthcare website to inform anyone within two days if there information had been compromised in a breach of security. It is reportedly a bill to make a statement, another attempt to delay or ruin obamacare, or so they say. The house claims this is just to prevent the kind of scandal that we had with target not to long ago, but some people are using this as another support of the 'shutdown congress.'
I think this is kinda sad. We have gotten to the point where they have to pass laws to ensure that companies are giving us every opportunity to protect ourselves.shouldn't that just automatically be the case? The article also said that the Obama administration opposed this, saying they would oppose any law that made it harder for those in charge if running the website to do their job. I think that is just a tad bit ridiculous, shouldn't this already be a part of their jobs? And isn't it the job of our government to protect the American people? I don't know why, but something about this new law and e arguments surrounding it just rubs me the wrong way.
Jobless, soon to be destitute
January 11, 2014
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/09/poll-majority-support-for-extending-jobless-benefits/
Unit 5
In a recent poll, 58% support extending jobless benefits for 3-months. This bill made it over the initial bound with some help from republicans, but they say they will withdraw their support unless the democrats can come up with a way to pay for the $6.4 billion dollar law. Republicans also accuse democrats of sabotaging their own bill in order to make the republicans look bad for the upcoming election.
I think that we definitely should extend benefits, at least for a time. Those who need those benefits were so sure that an extension would be made that they didn't prepare for the future. I think these benefits should be continued to be paid, but not indefinitely. Benefits should be enough to live on, but not enough that people would be happy with just those benefits, and will go out and look for a new job. We have to give people an opportunity to be able to go out and find a good job, so that they can support their families. If we don't, we aren't helping them, or ourselves.
Everyone deserves a second chance, and if people are willing to work for it, I think we should give it to them. Benefits should not just be handouts. If we used those people who are receiving jobs to take care of our cities, and help out, it wouldn't be so much of a free handout. And if the government took the initiative to get these people in line with those willing to give them a job, they wouldn't need to receive benefits for as long as some of them do. Just a thought.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/09/poll-majority-support-for-extending-jobless-benefits/
Unit 5
In a recent poll, 58% support extending jobless benefits for 3-months. This bill made it over the initial bound with some help from republicans, but they say they will withdraw their support unless the democrats can come up with a way to pay for the $6.4 billion dollar law. Republicans also accuse democrats of sabotaging their own bill in order to make the republicans look bad for the upcoming election.
I think that we definitely should extend benefits, at least for a time. Those who need those benefits were so sure that an extension would be made that they didn't prepare for the future. I think these benefits should be continued to be paid, but not indefinitely. Benefits should be enough to live on, but not enough that people would be happy with just those benefits, and will go out and look for a new job. We have to give people an opportunity to be able to go out and find a good job, so that they can support their families. If we don't, we aren't helping them, or ourselves.
Everyone deserves a second chance, and if people are willing to work for it, I think we should give it to them. Benefits should not just be handouts. If we used those people who are receiving jobs to take care of our cities, and help out, it wouldn't be so much of a free handout. And if the government took the initiative to get these people in line with those willing to give them a job, they wouldn't need to receive benefits for as long as some of them do. Just a thought.
More States to Sell Pot
January 11, 2014
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/09/us/alaska-recreational-marijuana-push/
Unit 5
This article reports on the fact that Alaska has been able to get a bill for legalizing marijuana on the next ballot which will take place in August. Colorado seems to have been a springboard for others to legalize recreational marijuana in many other states, including California, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Arizona. They only required 30,000 signatures to get this proposal on the ballot, and they got 45,000 signatures in support of this. If it passes, they will have a similar set-up to Colorado, and they will be the third state to legalize marijuana.
I think that for the most part, states are making a step in the right direction with this move. Legalizing recreational marijuana, and putting taxes on it, will add new jobs, and increase tax revenues. There will also be a control of how much people use, because in states where it is legal, there is only so much you can buy at a time, depending on whether or not you are a citizen of that state. It also restricts the age limit, like it does with alcohol, and the legislation that legalizes recreational marijuana make it clear that marijuana sold in one state is not to be taken to other states.
I think that legalizing marijuana is a good idea. It will bring it out of the shadows, and the black market will have one less thing that it can persuade people to buy, illegally. It will provide more revenue in sales tax, because just like cigarettes and alcohol, it will have a higher sales tax than regular everyday purchases, like food. I am in favor of this, and I think that in the long run it will actually decrease the number of deaths and overdoses by limiting the amount that people have access to.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/09/us/alaska-recreational-marijuana-push/
Unit 5
This article reports on the fact that Alaska has been able to get a bill for legalizing marijuana on the next ballot which will take place in August. Colorado seems to have been a springboard for others to legalize recreational marijuana in many other states, including California, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Arizona. They only required 30,000 signatures to get this proposal on the ballot, and they got 45,000 signatures in support of this. If it passes, they will have a similar set-up to Colorado, and they will be the third state to legalize marijuana.
I think that for the most part, states are making a step in the right direction with this move. Legalizing recreational marijuana, and putting taxes on it, will add new jobs, and increase tax revenues. There will also be a control of how much people use, because in states where it is legal, there is only so much you can buy at a time, depending on whether or not you are a citizen of that state. It also restricts the age limit, like it does with alcohol, and the legislation that legalizes recreational marijuana make it clear that marijuana sold in one state is not to be taken to other states.
I think that legalizing marijuana is a good idea. It will bring it out of the shadows, and the black market will have one less thing that it can persuade people to buy, illegally. It will provide more revenue in sales tax, because just like cigarettes and alcohol, it will have a higher sales tax than regular everyday purchases, like food. I am in favor of this, and I think that in the long run it will actually decrease the number of deaths and overdoses by limiting the amount that people have access to.
Pot Sales, Legally
January 11, 2014
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/31/us/colorado-recreational-marijuana/index.html
Unit 5
The first day of legal marijuana sales in Colorado made history. There was always a huge line, but people waited really patiently to get their pot, a relief for state officials.They said it made everything so much easier that people were patient and cooperative when they were waiting to buy the now legal recreational marijuana. There are a lot of restrictions to how much you can buy, and who can buy. Everyone who purchases medical marijuana must be 21 years or older. If they leave in-state, they can buy up to 1 ounce, out-of-state buyers can only be 1/4-ounce however. Marijuana sold in one state is not allowed to cross state lines, and it is no longer allowed in the airport, violations of these restrictions are subject to heavy fines. There are those who worry that the legalization of marijuana will cause problems for those in rehabilitation, parents, and others as well.
Despite the many arguments against having legalized marijuana, i think it is a good idea. Legalizing marijuana just brings the many sales that already take place out of the shadows, and controls the amounts that people can gain access to. Those in rehab may now have easier access, but it is obvious that they already knew where to get pot from, and this is just one more hill they will have to climb if they are serious in quitting pot. Parents should realize that with the new laws in place, there children under the age of 21 will have a harder time accessing the pot that they could be seeking. For those parents with children over the age of 21, they never really had any control before anyway, so they should just stop worrying about it, because they aren't going to change the mind of a legal adult who wants to smoke pot, with or without their parents permission.
I am very glad for the restriction though. They will prevent many problems in the future if they are properly enforced. I just hope that other states who are now considering the legalizing marijuana will be able to come up with their own laws that will be able to put in place such clear restrictions as Colorado has done, and that when legal recreational marijuana has ceased to be such a big thing in the news, that the sales, and consummation will both go down. You know that a lot of pot is being sold in one day when retailers are worried about being able to serve everyone, and rumors abound about retailers running out of marijuana to sell.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/31/us/colorado-recreational-marijuana/index.html
Unit 5
The first day of legal marijuana sales in Colorado made history. There was always a huge line, but people waited really patiently to get their pot, a relief for state officials.They said it made everything so much easier that people were patient and cooperative when they were waiting to buy the now legal recreational marijuana. There are a lot of restrictions to how much you can buy, and who can buy. Everyone who purchases medical marijuana must be 21 years or older. If they leave in-state, they can buy up to 1 ounce, out-of-state buyers can only be 1/4-ounce however. Marijuana sold in one state is not allowed to cross state lines, and it is no longer allowed in the airport, violations of these restrictions are subject to heavy fines. There are those who worry that the legalization of marijuana will cause problems for those in rehabilitation, parents, and others as well.
Despite the many arguments against having legalized marijuana, i think it is a good idea. Legalizing marijuana just brings the many sales that already take place out of the shadows, and controls the amounts that people can gain access to. Those in rehab may now have easier access, but it is obvious that they already knew where to get pot from, and this is just one more hill they will have to climb if they are serious in quitting pot. Parents should realize that with the new laws in place, there children under the age of 21 will have a harder time accessing the pot that they could be seeking. For those parents with children over the age of 21, they never really had any control before anyway, so they should just stop worrying about it, because they aren't going to change the mind of a legal adult who wants to smoke pot, with or without their parents permission.
I am very glad for the restriction though. They will prevent many problems in the future if they are properly enforced. I just hope that other states who are now considering the legalizing marijuana will be able to come up with their own laws that will be able to put in place such clear restrictions as Colorado has done, and that when legal recreational marijuana has ceased to be such a big thing in the news, that the sales, and consummation will both go down. You know that a lot of pot is being sold in one day when retailers are worried about being able to serve everyone, and rumors abound about retailers running out of marijuana to sell.
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Gay Marriage in Utah? Or not?
January 9, 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/us/justices-block-gay-marriage-in-utah-pending-appeal.html?_r=0
Unit 5
In a recent action the supreme court issued a halt to gay marriage in Utah, effectively reinstating Amendment 3, until a decision can made by appeals court. This is putting the legality of over 1,000 recent gay marriages in Utah into question. The state did warn same-sex couples that their marriages could be dissolved in the process of their appeals, but this does not change the disappointment that many same-sex couples feel at the supreme court's decision. Although there are some justices who believe that the matter of marriage should remain in the control of the states, some justices wonder if discrimination against gay couples will affect the children of those coupled.
This is a troubling issue. Personally, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that it should remain that way. but it is still a fact that there are many gay and lesbians out there who do not agree with my opinion. They are attracted to people of the same gender as themselves, and they deserve the same rights as everyone else. I am not surprised that Utah is fighting this decision with everything that they have, and I assume that they will continue to do so. I appreciate the decision of the supreme court, though. Although i am not a supporter of gay marriage, I also don't believe that anyone should have to suffer when they have done nothing to do it. Since it is very likely that Utah will dissolve those marriages that have taken place in the past few weeks, it doesn't seem right to allow more to be wedded, and then be ripped apart again. As seen in a previous post, Utah has declared that it will not recognize any of the gay marriages that have taken place. Utah is not saying that they are illegitimate, it is just saying that they will not allow same-sex couples to file jointly for taxes, health care, and many other benefits. It will be interesting to see where this battle leads.
So now a question... does the state have the right to decide who will be allowed to marry? Or is this something that should be addressed on a more national level?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/us/justices-block-gay-marriage-in-utah-pending-appeal.html?_r=0
Unit 5
In a recent action the supreme court issued a halt to gay marriage in Utah, effectively reinstating Amendment 3, until a decision can made by appeals court. This is putting the legality of over 1,000 recent gay marriages in Utah into question. The state did warn same-sex couples that their marriages could be dissolved in the process of their appeals, but this does not change the disappointment that many same-sex couples feel at the supreme court's decision. Although there are some justices who believe that the matter of marriage should remain in the control of the states, some justices wonder if discrimination against gay couples will affect the children of those coupled.
This is a troubling issue. Personally, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that it should remain that way. but it is still a fact that there are many gay and lesbians out there who do not agree with my opinion. They are attracted to people of the same gender as themselves, and they deserve the same rights as everyone else. I am not surprised that Utah is fighting this decision with everything that they have, and I assume that they will continue to do so. I appreciate the decision of the supreme court, though. Although i am not a supporter of gay marriage, I also don't believe that anyone should have to suffer when they have done nothing to do it. Since it is very likely that Utah will dissolve those marriages that have taken place in the past few weeks, it doesn't seem right to allow more to be wedded, and then be ripped apart again. As seen in a previous post, Utah has declared that it will not recognize any of the gay marriages that have taken place. Utah is not saying that they are illegitimate, it is just saying that they will not allow same-sex couples to file jointly for taxes, health care, and many other benefits. It will be interesting to see where this battle leads.
So now a question... does the state have the right to decide who will be allowed to marry? Or is this something that should be addressed on a more national level?
No recognition
January 9, 2014
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/08/utah-same-sex-marriages-not-recognized/4372657/
Unit 5
After the supreme court decided to halt gay marriage in Utah, until Utah is through with the appeal process, the governor informed the citizens of Utah, that they would not recognize the marriages that had already taken place. The governor told agencies not to recognize gay marriages in any legal proceeding. This means that same-sex couples who were legitimately married, can not file for taxes jointly, or get onto their partner's health care. They are not able to receive the benefits that regular married couples receive.
This is not in anyway surprising. What is surprising is that Utah is the 18th state to allow same-sex marriage, albeit not of their own will. With this declaration, Utah is not legitimatizing the marriages that have already taken place, at least not yet, they are just saying, that as a state they cannot recognize them, because it is against the law of this state. Utah is remaining firm on this decision, it warned same-sex couples after Judge Shelby's decision was announced that the marriages may be dissolved once they had succeeded in an appeal.
Although I am not a supporter of gay marriage, due to my religious background, I do believe that those who are gay should be given the same rights as those who are not. I have a couple of friends who are gay, and they are great people. Entirely normal, except for the fact they are attracted to people who are of the same-sex. But just because they are not the same as the majority, does not mean that they should be discriminated against. It is unfair, and they are also citizens of this state and nation. Although I do not personally believe in the concept of gay marriage, I do not think they should be kept from the same rights that others enjoy.
In other words, this is a complicated issue for me, and I can't determine which side I am on. In different ways, I am actually on both.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/08/utah-same-sex-marriages-not-recognized/4372657/
Unit 5
After the supreme court decided to halt gay marriage in Utah, until Utah is through with the appeal process, the governor informed the citizens of Utah, that they would not recognize the marriages that had already taken place. The governor told agencies not to recognize gay marriages in any legal proceeding. This means that same-sex couples who were legitimately married, can not file for taxes jointly, or get onto their partner's health care. They are not able to receive the benefits that regular married couples receive.
This is not in anyway surprising. What is surprising is that Utah is the 18th state to allow same-sex marriage, albeit not of their own will. With this declaration, Utah is not legitimatizing the marriages that have already taken place, at least not yet, they are just saying, that as a state they cannot recognize them, because it is against the law of this state. Utah is remaining firm on this decision, it warned same-sex couples after Judge Shelby's decision was announced that the marriages may be dissolved once they had succeeded in an appeal.
Although I am not a supporter of gay marriage, due to my religious background, I do believe that those who are gay should be given the same rights as those who are not. I have a couple of friends who are gay, and they are great people. Entirely normal, except for the fact they are attracted to people who are of the same-sex. But just because they are not the same as the majority, does not mean that they should be discriminated against. It is unfair, and they are also citizens of this state and nation. Although I do not personally believe in the concept of gay marriage, I do not think they should be kept from the same rights that others enjoy.
In other words, this is a complicated issue for me, and I can't determine which side I am on. In different ways, I am actually on both.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)