AP Government
21 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Sarah Kubena from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
Scoop.it!

BY 10/20 -- What Obama and the tea party have in common

BY 10/20 -- What Obama and the tea party have in common | AP Government | Scoop.it
They both disdain governing the way Madison intended.

Via Teresa Herrin
Sarah Kubena's insight:

This article was comparing the POTUS and the tea party in the way that they "both disdain governing the way Madison intended." 

 

The article seems to ring true for some people that may read it, but I disagree: why would President Obama agree to be the President if he didn't believe in the Madisonian system? This article is simply jibing at Obama, talking about how he's similar to a group of opposite political standing. I think it's childish and rude; instead of arguing about Obama and how he does nothing, how about you try and do something? It's like more people want to see Obama fail than America succeed.

more...
Chris Buenaseda's curator insight, November 4, 2013 7:10 PM

Both are similar in that they are really hard to compromise with. The framers of the government have aimed for the structure of the govt. to balnce out the power. I don't see any similarities between the two other than their characteristics when it comes to compromise.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 6:26 PM

I strongly agree  that politicians these days are so blinded by their parties' goals that they are unable to make necessary compromises that are better for the country. I like the way that the writer compares the Tea Party with Obama. He also says that because of this unwillingness to compromise, Obama has too much power.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 18, 2014 5:02 PM

The article says that both Obama and the Tea Party don't want to go through the process of compromising that Madison had planned out. They're both impatient and arent willing to work together. I think an issue like this should be compromised, They need to come up with a solution together and figure out what to do. Obama does want the legislative branch to touch Obamacare. In my opinion, thats not very democratic or fair. The legislative branch represents the US citizens. we elect representatives in the legislative branch so we can have a voice. With Obama saying he doesn''t want congess to touch it seems like he doesn't really care about our opinion.

Rescooped by Sarah Kubena from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
Scoop.it!

BY 10/20 -- Jim DeMint: We Won't Back Down on ObamaCare

BY 10/20 -- Jim DeMint: We Won't Back Down on ObamaCare | AP Government | Scoop.it
In The Wall Street Journal, president of the Heritage Foundation Jim DeMint writes that fighting a law that is unfair, unworkable and unaffordable is reasonable and necessary.

Via Teresa Herrin
Sarah Kubena's insight:

This article is about ObamaCare from a conservative perspective, and saying how it's bad.

 

DeMint writes the article well, with logos and pathos woven into it. He uses factual percentages in order to back up his argument, which makes it seem more legitimate. Overall, a well written article.

 

I haven't read the actual legislation of the Affordable Care Act, but DeMint makes it sound costly. Although I am not conservative, with the way our economy is right now, I don't think we're able to handle the strain of just how much the Affordable Care Act would cost.

more...
Sachi Kamble's curator insight, October 24, 2013 1:59 AM

Demint is obviously biased because he is the president of the leading conservative think tank in America. He claims that he has met people who complained that their converages have been renounced, their work hours cut and their jobs eliminated, but he doesn't have any direct quotes from these people, so it's all just paraphrased. The premiums have increased in 45 states. Young adult's premiums will be a lot higher than those of elderly, which will be hard on us since the baby boomers are all retiring now. The author claims that the only way Obamacare will lead to single-payer health-care system is by employers droping health-care for their low-wage workers. He also claims that health care will deteriorate in America as access to doctors will decrease. 

Tianna Kelly's curator insight, October 24, 2013 5:58 PM

Jim Dewint is  republican who believed that the recent government shutdown was both necessary and proper. According to him, it was the only option in fighting against an unfair law. However, he does not mention the effect of the shutdown- the government services that went to a halt, the workers who went unpaid, and those citizens adversely affected. In my opinion, DeWint, and those like him, make America the laughingstock of the global community. 

Chris Buenaseda's curator insight, November 4, 2013 5:50 PM

President of the Heritage Foundation Jim Demint states that he and many others are not stopping until they have gotten rid of Obamacare. Some main points against Obamacare is that it causes employment issues and citizens can not, financially, withstand the pressure that comes with the arrival of the ACA. While this guy tries to fight against a cause that no one has succeeded in passing for almost 50 years, Obamacare is still alive. Has he done his job in stopping Obamacare.

 

No. Obamacare is still up and running. 40+ times has it been challenged and 40+ times has it succeeded in staying alive and constitutional. Maybe they should stop trying. "Three times, the charm" is the phrase, not "40+ times, the charm."

Rescooped by Sarah Kubena from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
Scoop.it!

BY 10/15 -- Gerrymandering: the recipe for dysfunctional government?

BY 10/15 -- Gerrymandering: the recipe for dysfunctional government? | AP Government | Scoop.it

Video on msnbc.com: The age-old practice of politicians re-drawing Congressional districts to find friendly voters, or, gerrymandering, has allowed members of the House of Representatives from both sides of the aisle to stay in power regardless of...


Via Teresa Herrin
Sarah Kubena's insight:

This video is simply about gerrymandering and what it has done to our government.

 

What is said in this video is very on point; both Democrats and Republicans are good at drawing districts when they can in order to obtain a majority vote. No single party can take all the blame. What was also very interesting was the certian districts that have been dubbed certain animals. The pterodactyl with a broken wing was a winner.

more...
Mason Paul Lyman's curator insight, April 2, 2014 9:41 PM

1. The House redraws the congressional districts every 10 years on the census in an attempr to make the districts lend their support to whoever the current party majority is.

2. Gerrymandering allows incumbents to get reelected multiple times. 

3. Have a computerized, neutral program that would create districts based on geography and demography. A program such as this would make it more difficult for incumbents to get reelected.

4. Yes, there are. One party could earn more votes than another but still lose the election.

5. No because it is an unhonorable way to earn the respective benefits.

Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 12, 2014 2:09 PM

gerymandering is the act of redrawing a district and its has gotten its name from Albridge Garry who redrew a district in the beginning of our country in order for him to win a vote. The redrawing of the districts almost guarantees a win in voting because it allows the politicians to choose their voters. In the video, suggested possible solutions to gerrymandering would be to redraw district lines according to geography, demographics, and population density but it would cause a disruption in the current system and would make it very difficult for a representative to be reelected to a district that doesn't have the same advantages. Gerrymandering can be compared to the electoral college because these systems don't work in the favor of the public, or the majority vote because with the representatives picking the districts containing people they know will vote for them along with the electoral college being able to override the public vote, it has caused question in the democratic system of the United States.

Lauren Sargent's curator insight, April 17, 2014 9:47 PM

The term gerrymandering comes from an 1810 law that was created by Elbridge Gerry, Governor of Massachusetts, which repositioned and defined congressional districts based on population changes. After the law was passed, newspaper articles came out with pictures of the re-drawn districts in concerning shapes, such as a salamander. They linked the two words “salamander” and “Gerry” and called it gerrymandering. As time has gone on, gerrymandering has been manipulated by both the Republican and Democratic parties by them re-drawing districts specifically to change the possible outcome of their “political cartoon” if you will. House seats are being re-apportioned every presidential election year. The video suggested that these means of politics have made it so that “the politicians are choosing their voters, rather than the voters choosing their politicians”. This is causing major distrust in candidates and decrease in voter participation. Gerrymandering has been beneficial to incumbents because they change their districts to work in favor of their election. Both the Electoral College and gerrymandering can be seen as unfair or corrupt government practices because they can sometimes both not accurately depict the peoples' votes by changing their districts. With the Electoral College, they could win a majority of the electoral votes, but not the majority vote. With gerrymandering, a politician would be elected just because of the re-drawn, manipulated districts, which is ridiculous. 

Rescooped by Sarah Kubena from Coffee Party Feminists
Scoop.it!

Millions of Americans Will Pay Under $100 Monthly for Obamacare Coverage

Millions of Americans Will Pay Under $100 Monthly for Obamacare Coverage | AP Government | Scoop.it
According to a report from the US Department of Health and Human Services released today, about 6.4 million Americans will be able to buy health insurance for $100 or less per month using the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplace.

Via J'nene Solidarity Kay
Sarah Kubena's insight:

This article is about how the Affordable Healthcare Act will make healthcare more affordable to about 6.4 million Americans. Some will be able to pay under $100 monthly for healthcare. Up to 78% of uninsured people in the US could qualify for Medicaid if it is expanded to all 50 states.

 

I think this could be very good for America, if people were able to pay under $100 a month for healthcare. I dont think it would have a huge effect, being only 6.4 million people. But something is better than nothing, I suppose; many Americans are worried about paying a lot for healthcare, and this might placate some people. Hopefully this will actually be possible to execute, not simply an idea that we cannot acheive.

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Sarah Kubena from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
Scoop.it!

Same War, Different Country

Same War, Different Country | AP Government | Scoop.it
Who will prevail in the Arab awakening, Hobbes, Khomeini or Jefferson?

Via Teresa Herrin
Sarah Kubena's insight:

I very much agree with that Friedman is trying to say; we have to have some way of keeping control after we (might) take Assad out of power somehow. I'm glad someone is realizing that it is "all the same war," and we need to do something to prevent the total collapse of the government if Assad was taken out somehow.

more...
Mackenzie Hill's curator insight, September 11, 2013 1:28 AM

It's concerning to think that the US's help in Syria could lead to a political and economic recession as tragic as Libya's after American intervention. Friedman's point about how, though we are fighting in different places, we continuously fight over the same things, and thus it is one war. It seems, however, that in every intervention, no matter the strategy, we, as a nation, make some sort of fatal mistake. 

Abe's curator insight, September 11, 2013 2:58 AM

I found this article very interesting and easy to comprehend. It really helped shed light on how Syria is just another war in the Middle East with the same issue just as the other wars that had happened in the region.

George's curator insight, September 11, 2013 3:43 AM

Friedman does a good job persuading people by refering back to past experiences that America has been through. Like the saying goes, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Rescooped by Sarah Kubena from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
Scoop.it!

Video: Denis McDonough: 'Outraged' at Ted Cruz's Al Qaeda comments

Video: Denis McDonough: 'Outraged' at Ted Cruz's Al Qaeda comments | AP Government | Scoop.it
Denis McDonough, in an interview on ABC's 'This Week' said he was 'outraged' at Ted Cruz's comments that our forces would be serving as 'Al Qaeda's air force.' The interview was immediately followed by one with Sen.

Via Teresa Herrin
Sarah Kubena's insight:

I'm glad we're leaning towards no boots on the ground. Something needs to be done, for the sake of those people who were gassed to death. As long as our troops aren't in the line of fire; if we have information about where Syrian civilians are versus their military, and how we can avoid hurting them accidentally, we should definitely do something to help the Syrian people who are in need.

more...
Sammy Masri's curator insight, September 17, 2013 12:25 AM

30 seconds of generalized response isn't much to go on, and McDonough's statement showed it. Rather than namby-pamby about the issue, everyone needs to grab their fears by the horns are realize: "Yes, we will possibly be helping some groups that are maybe connected to Al-Qaeda. But in the meantime, we can help a whole country of civilians, who, when pressed, will vote for the more reasonable members of the rebels, IF the US helps in time."

 

No more of this "small, calculated, concise" strike nonsense.

Tianna Kelly's curator insight, December 1, 2013 9:02 PM

My initial reacton to Senator Cruz's was similar to McDonough's; Cruz's statement was clearly crafted to be sensational and make headlines. Although I am not a fan of potential United States military action in Syria, Cruz's comments were purposefully disrespectful and, as McDonough iterated, "outrageous".

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 7:35 PM

It seems very normal and typical for hte Chief of Staff to assure the public that there will be no boots on the ground, but I believe that no amount of assurance that this will be no Libya or Afghanistan, will persuade the American public to join this war.

Rescooped by Sarah Kubena from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
Scoop.it!

BY 10/20 -- It’s Not Just Political Districts. Our News Is Gerrymandered, Too.

The government shutdown reflects a political system that reinforces extremism. The news media system isn’t much different lately.

Via Teresa Herrin
Sarah Kubena's insight:

This article is about the media outlets catering to people with certain mindsets, ie liberals/conservatives.

 

The overall article is written well, with logos about what exactly is said on the different channels on TV and talk shows that specifically cater to conservatives. The media outlets are causing political polarization; they want to attract audiences, so they give the people what they want. It's basic supply and demand.

 

Nobody is being helped by the gerrymandering that's happening in the media; everyone is in their own metaphorical bubbles where they only hear what they want to hear. This makes it hard for people to hear the clear cut truth from accurate sources. If everyone has selective hearing, nothing will get done.

more...
Tianna Kelly's curator insight, October 24, 2013 5:54 PM

Gerrymandering is the inherently unfair and immoral practice of politicians of reshaping political district so as to give a particular political party the upper hand. According to this article, news media is engaged in the same unfair practices. News is altered and changed to fir the interests of a certain political leaning. Media outlets choose what images and stories to share with the public so as to shape public opinion to fit its own cause. This is an age-old practice, with most people believing that media outlets are generally liberally slanted. 

Chris Buenaseda's curator insight, November 4, 2013 5:03 PM

The article states how the media is bias much like a gerrymandered district. The media outlets portray different idoelogies and thus, they provide totally different point of views. Having these different media outlets gives  people different sides of different stories and to an extent, it is good to have different sides because it makes people more aware of who is spilling the facts or spreading just pure bullshit, much like Fox News delivers their broadcast every night.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 6:27 PM

I think that this article is very accurate. People may think they are branching out or exploring new horizons when they search the web and read the news. Search engines actually change and might guide us to only articles of certain viewpoints.  In essence, people don't receive the wide scope of information they think they are receiving because the information we intake is often filtered to fit our needs. 

Rescooped by Sarah Kubena from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
Scoop.it!

BY 10/15 -- 32 Republicans Who Caused the Government Shutdown

BY 10/15 -- 32 Republicans Who Caused the Government Shutdown | AP Government | Scoop.it
Meet the House conservative hardliners.

 

Rescoop, read, include a list of those from Texas

 


Via Teresa Herrin
Sarah Kubena's insight:

This article lists 32 Republicans who could be at fault for the government shutting down.

 

None of these people really surprise me, being on the list. It's simply about who likes Obamacare and who doesn't.

 

It incluses John Culberson, John Carter, Louie Gohmert, Randy Neugebauer, Steve Stockman, and Randy Weber.

more...
Tianna Kelly's curator insight, October 24, 2013 6:16 PM

This article details a list of Congressional members responsible for this month's government shutdown. A shocking (or perhaps not so shocking) number of these legislators hailed from Texas- these include John Culberson, John Carter, Ted Cruz, and Louis Gohmery. Not at all shockingly, nearly all of those considered responsible for the shutdown are members of the Republican party. Nominally, these "hardliners" ars fighting against an unjust law, but fail to consider those whose lives they ruin with their ideological struggle. 

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 7:01 PM

The small group of 32 Republicans shut down the government, refusing to support any resolution to fund the government that didn't defund Obamacare. Also, the article lists the 32 Republicans and quotes them about the government shutdown. I think that the republicans should be a little more open-minded and more willing to compromise. Those from Texas are John Carter, Randy Neugebauer, John Culberson, Steve Stockman, Louie Gohmert, and Randy Weber. 

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 18, 2014 1:17 PM

This article sheds light on the 32 conservatives who are blamed for the shutdown simply because they didn't support the funding of a government that didn't defund Obamacare. Instead of informing us about the actual crisis, they biasedly stick quotes from each conservative and place blame on Republicans for the shut down.

Rescooped by Sarah Kubena from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
Scoop.it!

BY 10/15 --CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin explains the debt ceiling

BY 10/15  --CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin explains the debt ceiling | AP Government | Scoop.it
Video on msnbc.com: NBC’s Kate Snow spoke with CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin  about the debt ceiling and what happens if Congress fails to raise that limit so the government can borrow more money to pay its bills...

Via Teresa Herrin
Sarah Kubena's insight:

This video is about the debt ceiling and what happens if we reach it, and also what happens if we default on our debt.

 

I think it's true, what they talk about in this video. Many, if not most, Americans are confused about the debt ceiling and what it precisely means. Also, what happens if we reach that ceiling. So much rumor and blame has been floating around, what with the government shut down. Many Americans simply don't know what to believe. Sorkin explains it clearly and concisely: either we give up some stuff, or some stuff gives up on us.

more...
Tianna Kelly's curator insight, December 1, 2013 9:30 PM

I am honestly befuddled by this entire predicament. Even after gathering an understanding of the debt ceiling and its impending deadline, I fail to understand why our country's elected officials, this country's highest legal authority, cannot come together and do what is best for those they represent, those who gave them their seats. 

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 7:21 PM

It seems that America has very little options, with all of them most likel going to spiral downhill. One question I would like answered is what does the government need to do to get to a point where it doesn't need to borrow money? I think that paying foreign nations back in small amounts would be best; borrowing more and raising the debt ceiling is what placed the goverment in this situation anyway. There are many other ways but I think that that would be the best way.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 18, 2014 12:43 PM

If we do not raise the debt ceiling, American citizens will experience an extreme loss of goods and services provided by the federal government. Then the government would have to decide if they want to pay back foriegn debtors (like China) and let Americans suffer, or supply goods and services to Americans and let the debt to countries increase until we do not have money yet. The states may have to step up and provide the services that the federal government can't.

Rescooped by Sarah Kubena from #Communication
Scoop.it!

Backgrounder: Government shutdown

Backgrounder: Government shutdown | AP Government | Scoop.it
If Congress can't pass a bill to fund the government by midnight of Sept. 30, large parts of the federal government will shut down. Agencies that provide entitlements such as social security, Medicare and Medicaid will keep providing those benefits.

Via Prof. Hankell
Sarah Kubena's insight:

This article is about the possible government shutdown that might happen if Congress doesn't pass a bill about finance options by midnight Sept. 30th. Some institutions will stay open/keep working, such as Medicare and Medicaid, but others would shut down completely, such as the Securities Exchange Comission, and trash pickup in Washington DC.

 

I really do hope that Congress can come to an agreement by midnight Sept. 30th. The mayor of DC did say that they have contigency plans in place if the government does shut down, but I personally think that it should never come to that. Congress needs to be decisive. With the political parties fighting as it is, the people who aren't involved with the bill decision are affected by it. They have to be ready to make a decision in order to maintain peace throughout the nation.

more...
Prof. Hankell's curator insight, September 25, 2013 5:58 AM

Sue Rosen RN, Chief Editor & Blogger of RNS AGAINST FORCED UNIONISM

Rescooped by Sarah Kubena from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
Scoop.it!

3: Roundtable: Crucial week for Obama - Video on NBCNews.com

3: Roundtable: Crucial week for Obama - Video on NBCNews.com | AP Government | Scoop.it
Video on msnbc.com: A Meet the Press roundtable forecasts the pressure on this upcoming week for the president to make his case for intervention in the Syrian conflict.

Via Teresa Herrin
Sarah Kubena's insight:

The President is simply being pulled between people who want to stage the attack, and those who don't. It's up to him and Congress to decide what to do, with inpur of the American public.

more...
Daniel Guo's curator insight, September 11, 2013 11:49 PM

I think that Newt Gingrich brings up good points about why it's hard for the public to support an airstrike on Syria. I think that this dicussion is a fair representation of the current public opinion on the matter- nobody wants to directly support a strike; there is no clear right answer.

Joseph Rumbaut's comment, September 12, 2013 7:40 AM
Likewise, Gingrich is right to say that this foreign affair is inexplicable to the average American so if Obama was going to appeal to the average American he would have to build up to it and not just be blunt. Honestly though, after watching Obama's address, I feel like he should have mentioned diplomacy more instead of making it seem as if the only choices left were military action, military action, and military action.
Rachel Murphy's curator insight, October 2, 2013 8:13 PM

All of the politicians here are hesitant about military strikes in Syria. because they aren't sure about the effect that it would cause. Newt Gingrich makes some excellent points about the importance of communication. I believe some action needs to be taken in Syria, but a strike would only unleash more problems for us. Syria's allies are too powerful. 

Rescooped by Sarah Kubena from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
Scoop.it!

Sen. Ted Cruz: I Don't Think President Obama 'Has the Authority' to Order Syria Strike Without Congressional Approval

Sen. Ted Cruz: I Don't Think President Obama 'Has the Authority' to Order Syria Strike Without Congressional Approval | AP Government | Scoop.it
Contradicting President Obama’s assertion, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said this morning on “This Week” that the president does not have the authority to order a military strike on Syria without Congressional approval.

Via Teresa Herrin
Sarah Kubena's insight:

Ted Cruz is using the slippery slope fallacy: "If we do this, then this will happen! And this! And this! AND THIS!" He's getting the American public hyped about the idea that we 'definitely' will go to war with Russia and China as a direct result of intervening in Syria. This isn't to say that I think we should send our troops into Syria, but he's only making the American public more scared about what will come of intervening (if we do). What we need right now is to be calmed, not scared into refusing help to people in need.

more...
Sammy Masri's curator insight, September 17, 2013 12:19 AM

Cruz spoke very well for the majority of the speech: he made a reasonable case about why an attack would not work. But he faltered on two points. One: The state of Texas, vast as though it may be, does not represent the United States. Two: It's almost become customary of Republicans to bring up Benghazi whenever possible. It happened, nothing short of a full-scale operation and the ability to see the future could have prevented it, let the American dead rest in peace.

 

Also, the longer you show the US not supporting innocent civilians, the more and more radical these "Islamic terrorists" will become. Cut to the chase - or in this case, a missile strike - and nip the thing in the bud before it grows too big.

Rachel Murphy's curator insight, October 2, 2013 8:20 PM

Cruz makes it clear that he does not approve of military action in Syria. He believes a strike would aid rebel forces with links to Al-Qaeda. The strike may weaken Assad, but it would only give rebel forces an opportunity to swoop in. His precautions with the attack are plausible. I like the point he made about how OUR US military is not Al-Qaeda's air force. They are here to defend the United States.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 6:16 PM

This video shows how complicated this whole situation is, and I had no idea how opposed the public was to involvment in Syria. Is there is a way to reprimand him without a strike? War crimes need to be reprimanded, but does this mean we have to go to war? I was all for involvment, but now I'm really questioning whether that would be the right thing to do.