AP Government and Economics
3 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Nathan Hsu from Government and Economics
Scoop.it!

Filibuster: Democrats will miss it when it’s gone - The Boston Globe

Filibuster: Democrats will miss it when it’s gone - The Boston Globe | AP Government and Economics | Scoop.it
Harry Reid detonated the “nuclear option” on the Senate floor last month and laid waste to the filibuster.

Via Joel Leagans
more...
nazlia's comment, December 16, 2013 8:38 PM
I agree with Arturo that the filibuster was overwhelming the house of reps and benefited the senate by a long run. Eliminating the filibuster can help the Democrats right now but can hurt them as the years go by and parties switch in power.
Kyle Ozuna's comment, December 17, 2013 4:48 PM
The Democrats knew going in that this was a double edged blade. They knew that this could and will eventually come back and bite them. However, I think the timing couldn't have been better. With the Republican Party slowly fracturing, the Senate may be under Democratic control for quite a long time. In the short run and foreseeable future it works to their benefit. After that, they certainly will suffer the consequences of no filibuster.
Amanda Shang's comment, December 17, 2013 11:51 PM
It's no surprise that this is called "the nuclear option." Reid's decision to change the rules about the Senate filibuster could potentially cause serious damage in the future. The Senate is known for its unlimited debate, compared to the House of Representatives, which has strict rules such as germane debate. Why turn the Senate into another House?<br>Ultimately, these rules will lead to a Senate ruled by a majority vote, with no bipartisanship, with no need for compromise. It also doesn't make sense for Reid to implement such changes considering his age, and considering the fact that he'll retire soon. He won't have to deal with the future problems caused by eliminating the filibuster.
Rescooped by Nathan Hsu from Government and Economics
Scoop.it!

Here’s how Obama is cutting Medicare

Here’s how Obama is cutting Medicare | AP Government and Economics | Scoop.it
There are hundreds of Accountable Care Organizations popping up around the country. And for Phil Bretthauer, that makes all the difference in the world.

Via Joel Leagans
more...
Joel Leagans's comment, December 10, 2013 3:42 PM
Rose, businesses and hospitals ONLY do things that will make them a short-term profit. The inefficient system worked because the insurance companies had no way of putting profit pressure on hospitals.
Jiahao Chen's comment, December 16, 2013 11:13 PM
There should be more news coverage about policies and programs, that’s the things Americans can discuss and judge based on their merits. But it seems all of the media would rather focus on the animus between personalities in the government over legislative or policy issues than cover, it transfer people’s attention from what they supposed or should focus on more, and they should discuss and inform the public about the merits of the law or policy. I think stirring that part makes for more profit. All they did was good for the news companies, but bad for the American public. If patients are receiving better care at a lower cost, that must be everyone’s wish, but it seems like ACA is just beginning to improve our health care.
Ally Ryf's comment, December 16, 2013 11:32 PM
I definitely was not expecting to read a positive article based on the title. However, the article was upbeat, discussing a man who has been affected by the ACO's new plan in a positive way. However, I think that it would be difficult to regulate all doctors and hospitals to ensure that all patients are receiving quality care. As the article said, more health care does not mean better health care also.But I think that making more healthcare available is a step in the right direction.
Rescooped by Nathan Hsu from Government and Economics
Scoop.it!

Meet the New Hillary

Meet the New Hillary | AP Government and Economics | Scoop.it
Back on the campaign trail for the first time since 2008, the former secretary of state has a new celebrity and gravitas—but some of the same old flaws.

Via Joel Leagans
more...
Olivia LaPadula's comment, November 8, 2013 7:13 PM
I want to say Hillary Clinton is a strong independent woman who doesn't need anyone, but I can't since she does need people to get her elected in 2016 (but that doesn't take away the strong independent woman part). Her image has grown significantly in a positive light since the 2007 primary. It's her goal now to continue that positive press and not regress as she did during the Benghazi fiasco. At this moment Hillary is a Washington outsider now and according to the news she's trail blazing in California continuing the new image and that she can bring about change,
Cici Xie's comment, November 9, 2013 12:43 AM
This was a smart move by Hillary Clinton. This event was a great opportunity for her reemergence. She really did appeal to the general public by presenting herself as a woman of change, a woman who will learn from the mistakes of those currently in office. Hillary separates herself from the government failures. I feel that this really helped rally a lot of support for her. Since she is probably campaigning in 2016, Hillary Clinton will definitely be a strong contender.
Arturo Villalobos's comment, November 10, 2013 8:56 PM
Hillary Clinton is doing an awesome job earning herself a nice reputation. She is working hard to build herself up and bury all the things that brought her down during her run. She is taking all the right moves by not focusing on out current political issues. If I were her I would do the same. I just hope things keep going as well they are now.
Rescooped by Nathan Hsu from Government and Economics
Scoop.it!

This is the speech Obama would give on Syria if he were brutally honest

This is the speech Obama would give on Syria if he were brutally honest | AP Government and Economics | Scoop.it
The president made his case to the nation for striking Syria. What if he'd taken truth pills?

Via Joel Leagans
more...
nazlia's comment, October 1, 2013 11:55 PM
Obama should not have interfered with Syria in the first place since it wasn't technically America's business. Morally, he did the right thing and the speech consists of a smart and professional way to handle the situation (disregarding the fact that he said he would attack Syria, and he basically had to otherwise he would look weak and silly if he didnt follow through). The aftermath of Syria agreeing to give up all chemical weapons is a great solution to the issue.
Taylor Moser's comment, October 3, 2013 5:46 PM
During Obama's speech, nothing was firmly stated about his plans on Syria. Although now it clear that we are not going to attack Syria, the whole crisis could have easily been avoided. Obama's comment about the "red line" put him and the United States in a bad situation. There was no possible way for America to come out in a positive light. Either Obama is breaking his word and not attacking Syria and they can continue to produce chemical weapons because America is considered a push over or Americans attack Syria and waste tons of money that could have easily been saved if Obama had not made a stupid comment thinking that America could live up to his threat.
Amanda Shang's comment, October 3, 2013 11:35 PM
Obama's biggest mistake was mentioning that if Syria crossed the "red-line", the United States would be forced to take military action. Through the article (based on what Obama would have said if he had taken "truth pills"), one can see that the United States is faced with two options that are equally disastrous. If the president failed to follow through with this threat, the United States, making empty threats, would be see as weak, ; however, if the US actually spent the money to attack Syria, the US would also be at a loss. Basically, had Obama avoided saying that single phrase, we would not have been in that mess.
Rescooped by Nathan Hsu from Government and Economics
Scoop.it!

Wonkbook: The Republican Party’s problem, in two sentences

Wonkbook: The Republican Party’s problem, in two sentences | AP Government and Economics | Scoop.it
The GOP is no longer powerful enough to solve its collective-action problems.

Via Joel Leagans
more...
Amanda Taylor's comment, October 3, 2013 10:53 PM
Commenting on the thought process of the Republican party relating to the government shut down as a political popularity contest describes exactly how the American government functions. It is much more about popularity and re-election than morally sound decisions that reflect well on the country.
David Miller's curator insight, October 4, 2013 5:26 PM

Seeing how the government has shutdown the two sentence description of Republicans is very true.  The strategy behind their actions is smart, placing names and faces all over media.  Popularity goes up when each person can be seen more.  The Republican party played the lead up to a shutdown to be very much in favor of them.  The  results will soon be shown as to how it works out overall. 

Adelle's comment, October 7, 2013 8:03 PM
The description was very true but now that the shutdown has been in effect, Republicans are losing approval. We will see how it turns out but this will most likely end up in a higher percentage of approval for Obama.
Rescooped by Nathan Hsu from Government and Economics
Scoop.it!

Wonkbook: Three reasons filibuster reform might actually happen today

Wonkbook: Three reasons filibuster reform might actually happen today | AP Government and Economics | Scoop.it
Filibuster reform is just another word for nothing left to lose.

Via Joel Leagans
more...
Nathan Hsu's comment, November 26, 2013 1:53 AM
Ezra Klein was spot on in his prediction that the filibuster was going to be destroyed. It is about time that the stupid filibuster is killed. All the filibuster has done is thwart the will of the people and go against what democracy is supposed to be. Harry Reid has been playing his cards right this whole time and finally made the big punch by taking out the filibuster. The Senate is getting ugly, and will be decided soon whether or not the Republicans can take it back or not.
Rescooped by Nathan Hsu from Government and Economics
Scoop.it!

The Tea Party Is Damaging Its Credibility in the Way It Can Least Afford

The Tea Party Is Damaging Its Credibility in the Way It Can Least Afford | AP Government and Economics | Scoop.it
A faction that faces doubts about its ability to govern responsibly has foolishly associated itself with default and government shutdown.

Via Joel Leagans
more...
Anna Xu's comment, November 4, 2013 10:58 PM
The Tea Party is far too radical to gain major control of the government. Perhaps the scariest thing about the Tea Party is that its stance on some issues is unknown. The public is nervous about the Tea Party because they do not know the type of policy it will implement, and a transparent political issue is far preferable to an opaque one. Furthermore, if the Tea Party distances itself and its views further from the Republican Party, fewer constituents will follow the party away from the far more established, substantial Republican Party. The Tea Party is on its way to destroying itself.
Dayton Rosenberg's comment, November 5, 2013 5:04 PM
I can't wait for the Tea Party to self destruct. It's seemingly never-ending temper tantrums and refusals to cooperate have launched Congress into a state of "uberhyperpluralism". Furthermore, they are the sort of faction that would destroy the system if they don't get what they want, as the article stated.
Nathan Hsu's comment, November 6, 2013 4:39 PM
I'm expecting there to be a full on ideological split within the republican party within the next couple of years to such a point that the Tea Party will actually become a 3rd party that runs in upcoming elections. (ideal scenario: think about a debate that would feature Chris Christie, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Cruz running as the 3rd party candidate). This fracturing of the Rep. Party will obviously lead to dems winning even more elections easily in the future
Rescooped by Nathan Hsu from Government and Economics
Scoop.it!

The Ridiculous Libertarian Argument for Striking Down the Chemical Weapons Law That’s Before the Supreme Court

The Ridiculous Libertarian Argument for Striking Down the Chemical Weapons Law That’s Before the Supreme Court | AP Government and Economics | Scoop.it
It’s the Supreme Court case that sounds like a Lifetime movie: When Carol Bond found out that her husband was having an affair with her best friend, Myrlinda Haynes—and that Haynes was pregnant—Bond, a microbiologist who lived in the Philadelphia...

Via Joel Leagans
more...
Robert Rexford's comment, November 7, 2013 5:27 PM
I do not think that entering the treaty with Syria would allow Congress to take hold of a criminal court case. While the debate over interpretation of the Constitution has continued for decades, it must be understood that the foundation of our country was set in a developing country that no longer resembles that of the current nation. Referring to the Constitution in this day of age seems to be futile especially in a case that the founding fathers could not have even dreamt of.
Ron Gadot's comment, November 9, 2013 12:41 AM
I believe that the decision regarding Bond v. United States is simple. We are talking chemical weapons here. Corrosive substances that take criminal activity to a whole other level. One can think of it from the standpoint that if the U.S government entered into a treaty with other major countries in the world such as China, the UK, and India banning chemical weapons on the world stage, then the United States should have the ability to prevent their use within it's own borders. More importantly, I say that the Necessary and Proper Clause can in fact be used in this case to allow government to pass a law making it a federal crime to use chemical weapons to hurt others, under the idea that government is upholding it's inherent responsibility to protect its people from widespread danger. Plus this woman is sort of crazy for using a chemical agent to kill another woman for sleeping with her husband and needs to go to prison for murder
Alex Luckey's comment, November 11, 2013 10:38 PM
Cato's interpretation of the Constitution here is a huge stretch. This woman tried to murder her best friend with chemical weapons. The Constitution was a document written 200 years ago, before chemical weapons were even a thing. There's no way the framers could have predicted how the world would be today, it's so different. The Constitution shouldn't be taken so literally. I think it's ridiculous that there's even a question about what this woman should be charged with. The government is supposed to protect it's people, and the Constitution is supposed to make that possible.
Rescooped by Nathan Hsu from Government and Economics
Scoop.it!

How people argue with research they don’t like

How people argue with research they don’t like | AP Government and Economics | Scoop.it
If you ever need to rebut a study whose conclusion you don't like, just follow this simple flowchart.

Via Joel Leagans
more...
Mary-Claire Graham's comment, October 4, 2013 6:42 PM
This chart is a very accurate depiction of how people argue against a subject. People always seem to find a counter point to reject something. People try to argue against the origins of the experiment and the way it was conducted to try to prove it wrong. When arguments like these are made against something it is best to look at the experiment and the results yourself and draw your own conclusions.
Eugene Guan's comment, October 4, 2013 9:13 PM
This chart depicts every thought process of an argument. With every statement, the opposition is sure to find someway somewhere to rebuttal it. The fact is that one's opinion is often times rejected by others. Typically, the audience hone in on articles/decisions that closely relate to theirs and when things aren't so, they typically criticize the whole origins of the experiment.
Cici Xie's comment, October 5, 2013 12:39 AM
This flow chart is an easy way to demonstrate the thought process of people. People read what they want to read and believe what they want. If the things they read do not support what they believe, then they'll find any excuse to explain why that research or study is completely wrong. When people read research, they all have some sort of bias already, which makes it difficult for them to accept opposing research.
Rescooped by Nathan Hsu from Government and Economics
Scoop.it!

Extremely Extreme Extremists

Extremely Extreme Extremists | AP Government and Economics | Scoop.it
Liberal "shutdown" rhetoric ignores the irresponsibility of
Democrats.

Via Joel Leagans
more...
Kyle Ozuna's comment, October 4, 2013 12:32 AM
It's kind of interesting to examine the amount of influence that the media exerts over politics. Even if a story is distorted and as far from the truth as possible, if the media reports it, the public believes it. I found it somewhat annoying how the author put the blame of the government shutdown solely on the Democrats. Obviously the debt under Obama has vastly increased - during economic downturns it is known that governments need to largely increase their expenditures to attempt to revitalize the economy. The author seems to blame the increase of entitlement spending on the Democrats while it is purely a matter of demographics - the baby boomer generation is now retiring, increasing the need of social security and medicare..
Jennifer Li's comment, October 4, 2013 6:26 PM
I agree that the media tends to portray the Democrats in a better light than it does the Republicans. The government cannot just keep spending. With the economic recovery, the government needs to pay off its debts and the Democrats need to consider the future of the country instead of trying to bribe the American people for their votes.
Alex Luckey's comment, October 5, 2013 1:04 AM
I really don't think that the blame can be pinned on any specific party. The author tries to put the blame on the Democrats, and yes of course they had a big part in it, but there are so many other factors that contributed to the shutdown. The Democrats did mess up, but the Republicans refusal to pass a budget is just immature and selfish.