BHS GOPO
30 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Rachel Yang from Government and Economics
Scoop.it!

Why the Republican Push for Black Voters Is (Mostly) Doomed to Fail

Why the Republican Push for Black Voters Is (Mostly) Doomed to Fail | BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
As long as the GOP is pushing voter-ID laws that make it harder for African Americans to vote, the party's appeal to identity politics will come up short.
Via Joel Leagans
Rachel Yang's insight:
This article sounds incredibly medical considering the day and age we live in now. Honestly, if people still think every decision is based on race, then they are even bigger idiots than I had once thought.
more...
Rabika Rehman's curator insight, April 8, 2014 2:33 AM

This article is about how the GOP is finding new ways to turn African american into republicans. Apparently, GOP thinks what really matters is not the ideas but the skin color. But changing their views on early voting, voter ID, and the voting rights of ex-prisoners doesn't mean changing their stated ideals. 


Lauren Heim's curator insight, April 16, 2014 10:36 PM

This deals with government and law by which republicans want more votes from African Americans. They want more votes to get into congress and to get things passed and to pretty much get what they want done not actually considering what african Americans want. Though it's stating their attempts are only making matters worse.

Abigail Beinborn's comment, April 19, 2014 5:29 PM
I also think would make it worse. This was a good article that related well to government and law.
Rescooped by Rachel Yang from Government and Economics
Scoop.it!

The Origin of 'Liberalism'

The Origin of 'Liberalism' | BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
When Adam Smith and a group of fellow Scots first used the word in a political sense, it meant something very different than it does today.
Via Joel Leagans
Rachel Yang's insight:
This article is especially interesting when you think of the more modern implication of the term "liberal". Nowadays the word is almost as dirty as socialism and communism. But, as the article states, Adam Smith uses the word liberal several times in his Wealth of Nations. Considering liberal now coincides with the thought of anti capitalism it's funny to see the drastic change in meaning.
more...
Menelik Clark's comment, April 4, 2014 3:53 PM
It is not surprising to see that modern American definition of liberalism is different from the original meaning of the ideology. As new issues arise in society, people tend to find a way to relate the liberal and conservative ideologies to these issues. Before throwing around terms like "liberals" and "conservatives" loosely, people should be informed about the original meaning of these ideologies, and understand how these terms evolved into what it is today.
rachel's comment, April 7, 2014 10:34 AM
It is interesting that Adam Smith used liberal in his book "The Wealth of Nations." Originally though Smith's friend William Robertson was the first to use the term liberal in a political sense. Smith used “liberal” to describe application of the same principles to domestic policy issues. Since this the term moved form Eurpoe to the US. “liberal” was used, as compared to in Britain, more to denote constitutional reform and political participation, as opposed to natural liberty. Britain’s exceptional history of stable government and islandhood helped to make Smith’s focus on natural liberty possible. Today the term “liberalism” often lies with the status quo, or even with the idea that the government should “do something” to solve perceived problems. A much diffrent and more evolved meaning than 1776
nazlia's comment, April 8, 2014 12:38 AM
Its interesting how its pointed out that the meaning of liberal has changed over the decades. The word does not mean what Adam Smith meant for it to mean and represent as the article states "He used “liberal” to describe application of the same principles to domestic policy issues. " where as now liberal policies emphasize the need for problems to be solved, etc.
Scooped by Rachel Yang
Scoop.it!

BY 10/22 or 10/23 -- 1-800-ObamaCare-Denial: Website problems don't matter when your intentions are good.

BY 10/22 or 10/23 -- 1-800-ObamaCare-Denial: Website problems don't matter when your intentions are good. | BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
The Wall Street Journal on the liberal claim that website problems don't matter when your intentions are good.
Rachel Yang's insight:

This biased article discusses the problems with the newly launched website healthcare.gov and its glitches. It suggests that Obama had sold healthcare to the public as if he were an infomercial. It is quite embarrassing that they cannot get the website up and running. If you try to call the hotline all it will do is send you back to site and the process will just keep repeating, leaving you stuck in a cycle with no resolution.

more...
Rabika Rehman's curator insight, October 24, 2013 10:37 PM

Obama thinks that the afordable care act is more than just a website.This reform is upsetting insurance company,they are already making changes with their individual policies because they are non-complaint with the obama care. The fact that it's more than a website should scare people.

Maddy Folkerts's curator insight, October 25, 2013 9:21 PM

I don't agree with this article that the website problems means all of ObamaCare will be a failure. It's more of a technical issue than an issue with the whole plan of the policy. This article was extremely biased and touched on irrelevant problems rather than arguing the actual important, debatable topics.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 7:47 PM

Obama encourages people to apply for benefits over phone. The article itself is very discriminating and has a very derogetory tone. ObamaCare's real goal is to focus over health care. The disadvantage of ObamaCare is that the enrolled people will mainly be the most expensive patients. Even in the video, obama says that the website is slow and there are problems, but the intentions are good. Some people are going to be paying higher prices than they usually do.

Rescooped by Rachel Yang from AP Government & Politics
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 | BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
They both disdain governing the way Madison intended.

Via Teresa Herrin
Rachel Yang's insight:

This article explains how both Obama and the Tea Party both share disdain over the Madisonian government system because it takes a longer time and require more patience in order to come to a conclusion. Even though the Madisonian system is a longer and more difficult process, I believe through the checks and balances and compromising we will have better results in the long run.

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.

Scooped by Rachel Yang
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 | BHS GOPO | 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.
Rachel Yang's insight:

In this article Jim DeMint explains that he and the other republicans must keep fighting in order to end Obamacare because it is costing our government too much money and causing a loss of jobs. After reading I can see the reasoning behind the fight against Obamacare but looking at countries who already have universal heathcare, I believe we have the ability to achieve the same.

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 Rachel Yang from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

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

BY 10/15 -- Gerrymandering: the recipe for dysfunctional government? | BHS GOPO | 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
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 Rachel Yang from News You Can Use - NO PINKSLIME
Scoop.it!

Obama: 'Raising the Debt Ceiling...Does Not Increase Our Debt,' Though It Has 'Over 100 Times' - Conservative Byte

Obama: 'Raising the Debt Ceiling...Does Not Increase Our Debt,' Though It Has 'Over 100 Times' - Conservative Byte | BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Obama: 'Raising the Debt Ceiling...Does Not Increase Our Debt,' Though It Has 'Over 100 Times'

Via #BBBundyBlog #NOMORELIES Tom Woods #Activist Award #Scoopiteer >20,000 Sources >250K Connections http://goo.gl/ruHO3Q
Rachel Yang's insight:

Obama assures American citizens that raising the debt ceiling will not affect the national debt but instead encourage Congress to pay back the debt they already owe. As for me, I disagree. Raising the debt won't necessarily push Congress to pay off what they owe; in fact it will just allow us to fall deeper into debt.

more...
Mark Sam's curator insight, September 25, 2013 1:13 AM

Obama says that we have raised the debt ceiling 'over 100 times', but most of the time, debt only increases.  Does he not understand that?  He says that raising the debt ceiling is not increasing debt, but there is a much greater chance in increasing debt from raising the ceiling.  I believe we would be much better suited to use the amount of debates we're currently using on the debt ceiling to use on how to eliminate our debt all together.  Why talk about ways to spend more when we should talk about ways to spend less?

Brian Cohen's curator insight, September 25, 2013 3:52 PM

Does anybody understand what Obama is saying about the debt cieling? Even though it's been done over 100 times does not necessarily mean that it works. It has probably been used so many times because it gives the government more freedom to go further in debt instead of taking responsibility for the high debt and finding a solution for it. And I will just come out and say it, President Obama could not have been more wrong when he said that raising the debt ceiling doesn't raise the debt. The government is going to take advantage of the extra "leeway" given to them if the ceiling is increased. 

Jalyssa Martinez's curator insight, September 26, 2013 2:10 AM

Obama, you can keep saying that raising the debt ceiling does not mean we're increasing in debt, and if we're not increasing ind ebt, why must the debt celing limit keep rising? 

Rescooped by Rachel Yang from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

The Syrian regime’s military assets

The Syrian regime’s military assets | BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
As the U.S. contemplates air strikes on Syria, observers say the regime has scrambled to move many assets, including chemical weapons stockpiles, into hard-to-attack areas or close to large numbers of civilians.

Via Teresa Herrin
Rachel Yang's insight:

Friedman has shed light upon many good points that has allowed me to view the Syrian situation in a new point of view. He explains how the wars in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Libya, and Syria are all the same war. He's made me rethink and reconsider my original viewpoint on the subject.


 

more...
Joseph Rumbaut's curator insight, September 12, 2013 7:31 AM

A lot of Syria's military power is concentrated to the West. This makes Syria easy to flank and I'm sure Assad knows this and the U.S. could easily take down Syria but now that Russia's involved it seems like military action will not be necessary

Victor Osorto's comment, September 21, 2013 7:10 PM
The idea of Obama not deploying American Feet on Syrian Soil, but now the focus of attention for our attacks will be the Navy, who as stated in this article, has excellent history in Naval Combat. This just might U.S. the upper-hand if given the go to combat Syria. But Syria's response of equipping war machines in the citizen's villages could trigger Obama on to where to specifically attack and not be guilty for killing innocent lives. U.S has potential to win the war against Syria, but we aren't sure on what Russia has in support for Syria. Although, our Navy has extraordinary missiles, U.S Navy must make sure they make pin-point targets or else they could be facing more drastic measures.
Linh Phan's comment, September 23, 2013 7:14 PM
The Syrian military assets is not the problem. Its out of date and poorly operated, so its not going to be a problem for US attacks because we use missile launches from warships and airplanes. We don't even need to go into Syrian airspace.
Rescooped by Rachel Yang from Government and Economics
Scoop.it!

Ted Cruz Just Made Life Miserable for Republican Leaders Once Again

Ted Cruz Just Made Life Miserable for Republican Leaders Once Again | BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
The Senate passed a measure to raise the debt ceiling, but not before two Republican leaders had to cast perilous votes.
Via Joel Leagans
Rachel Yang's insight:
I personally don't think that Ted Cruz really minds the bad press. To him, this is just putting his agenda on a more public platform and if anything will just give him more airtime. republicans can complain all they want, but there are people who want him in office, and there are enough of them to make it happen.
more...
Linh Phan's comment, March 30, 2014 8:39 PM
This is not the last time Ted Cruz will annoy his fellow Republicans because he is a young conservative from the tea party, who defeated an old buddy system Republican Dewhurst in Texas. Conservatives are really tired of their old Republicans running as Conservatives, but when they get into the office, they start going along with the liberal Democrats. That's why Republicans are annoyed with Ted Cruz.
Timothy Shields's comment, April 1, 2014 7:41 PM
I believe Ted Cruz filibuster was only for him to get publicity that it it wasn't for an cause it wasn't to show loyalty to democrats or Republicans it was him making his own politically gains and making sure he is set in life period.
Mayline Zhong's comment, May 21, 2014 12:32 PM
It's pretty obvious that Ted Cruz did this only for publicity. It was apparent from the beginning that the debt ceiling would pass anyways. The only other explanation for the filibuster is publicity. Perhaps he is trying to divide the Republican party in order to launch his own tea party party or perhaps he just wants to let the public know he still exists. Either way, the filibuster was completely unnecessary.
Rescooped by Rachel Yang from Government and Economics
Scoop.it!

Why a Ruthless Hillary Clinton and a Ruthless Chris Christie Aren’t the Same Thing

Why a Ruthless Hillary Clinton and a Ruthless Chris Christie Aren’t the Same Thing | BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Let us now praise ruthless men. And women. The two most talked-about potential presidential candidates in 2016 are enduring public examinations of their ruthlessness. In New Jersey federal investigators, the legislature, and the press are looking at whether Gov. Chris Christie knew aides in his office sought to punish a local...
Via Joel Leagans
Rachel Yang's insight:
the article is essentially about the ruthlessness of politics. Focusing on the Clintons, namely Hilary, the article writes how the world of politics is dog eat dog. To make it, you need to balance self interest and alliances. It's hard to meet your own agenda with out irritating other politicians in the process.
more...
Danielle Shahin's comment, April 3, 2014 4:59 PM
than a man. To prove she can. Get the job done
Danielle Shahin's comment, April 3, 2014 4:59 PM
than a man. To prove she can. Get the job done
Paulina Ho's comment, April 4, 2014 4:16 PM
If you're going to go into politics, there is no doubt you will gain enemies. If you let people walk all over you, you will not be respected and you will not get anywhere. I understand that you need to be aggressive and active as a politician, standing for your own beliefs and always moving towards your goals, but at the same time, there should be a limit- a limit that HC wasn't too aware of back in the day. But at the end of the day, it is her life and her decision on how to pursue her goals. If she feels that she needs to have a list of people who have done her wrong, then let her be. i'm sure there are male politicians who are just as ruthless BUT no one says anything about it, because stereotypes say that men are supposed to be cunning, while women are supposed to be open and sensitive. It's the 21st century now and there are women in the world of politics, there will be ruthless women among the field of ruthless men.
Scooped by Rachel Yang
Scoop.it!

BY 10/22 or 10/23 -- Inside the Bush, Cheney relationship

BY 10/22 or 10/23 -- Inside the Bush, Cheney relationship | BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Peter Baker talks about his book, “Days of Fire: Bush and Cheney in the White House.” He calls the relationship between the duo, “one that drifted apart.”
Rachel Yang's insight:

This video discusses the relationship between Bush and Chaney while they were still in the whitehouse. Some thought chaney had control over bush as if like a "puppet master" and how their relationship deteriorated and drifted apart. However I don't really see the relevance since the Bush administration ended long ago.

more...
Chris Buenaseda's curator insight, November 4, 2013 7:14 PM

The video explains how Cheney was influential in Bush's decision-making, but less and less was he influential towards the end of Bush's 2nd term. This discussion was very interesting to watch as it painted Dick Cheney in another light, other than being the lackey to the younger Bush. Without Cheney's participation and adcive, Bush wouldn't have lasted the White House for past one term.

 

Melissa Aleman's curator insight, November 10, 2013 11:11 PM

This video discusses the relationship between Bush in cheney and how it was not all as it seems and in their new book, Days of Fire, you can see that. All though they had their differences and grew distant they came together when needed. I think it was a nice video and good to hear a little behind the scenes of the truth of their relationship and how it wasnt all good.

 

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 6:28 PM

 This video is about bush and chaney while they where in the white house. It outlines the breaking and falling apart of their relationship and how bush really didn't have any power and chaney was the one really making the decisions, like a "puppet master". I think that their relationship as friends and as colleges was strained due to the media, the policy agenda and the war in Iraq.

Scooped by Rachel Yang
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.
Rachel Yang's insight:

This article discusses the fact that gerrymandering doesn't just occur about the congressional districts but also throughtout our media. The news channels that we watch on television are clearly biased and even though this may seem unnoticed sometimes, the bias still creates a problem.

 

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. 

Scooped by Rachel Yang
Scoop.it!

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

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

 

Rescoop, read, include a list of those from Texas

 

Rachel Yang's insight:

This article plainly sheds light on the 32 hardline conservatives who are blamed for the shutdown because they didn't support the funding of a government that didn't defund Obamacare. Instead of informing us about the actual crisis, they stick in a random quote from each conservative and place blame on Republicans for the shut down. Those from Texas include John Carter, John Culberson, 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 Rachel Yang from AP Government & Politics
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 | BHS GOPO | 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
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 Rachel Yang from Business Transformation
Scoop.it!

10 ways a government shutdown would affect your daily life

10 ways a government shutdown would affect your daily life | BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
10 ways a government shutdown would affect your daily life.

Via Karl Wabst
Rachel Yang's insight:

On October 1st the government could shut down which will lead to negative effects for people all over America. All national parks, zoos, and museums will be closed. Trash service will stop picking up our garbage. Student loans and government aid will cease. If Democrats and Republicans continue to disagree over a budget then all US citizens will have to burden the awful repercussions.

more...
Mark Sam's curator insight, September 25, 2013 12:59 AM

In just one week, on October 1st, if the Republicans and Democrats cannot come to a compromise, the government will shut down.  This means there will be no national parks, no federal aid, no student loans, nothing.  The compromise is over whether or not we should raise the debt ceiling.  Personally, I don't think we should raise it, however I do think there has to be a better way than simply shutting down government.  I also believe that our two parties should be more willing to compromise.  It shouldn't always be one partie's way or the highway.

April Mai's curator insight, September 25, 2013 7:58 PM

After reading this article, I just started to panic because money is everything. Imagine how crazy the nation will go once the government does shutdown. More violence and robbery because these people would do anything to keep their family stable. As a senior getting ready for college financial aid is crucial. Im afraid i won't be able to go to college because my parents never saved anything for my tutition.

Karl Wabst's comment, September 26, 2013 9:16 PM
Bozo's back in town! http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/26/politics/shutdown-showdown-house/?hpt=po_c1
Rescooped by Rachel Yang from AP Government & Politics
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 | BHS GOPO | 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
Rachel Yang's insight:

I do somewhat agree with Senator Cruz about not issuing a military attack however I still feel that would be the more efficient way in stopping Assad. It is our job to protect other nations that cannot do so for themselves.

 

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.