Dylan Barth BHS Government
2 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Dylan Barth from AP U.S. Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Due by 4/25--Here's What You Need to Know About the President's 2015 Budget

Due by 4/25--Here's What You Need to Know About the President's 2015 Budget | Dylan Barth BHS Government | Scoop.it
Here's how President Obama's budget would grow our economy and expand #OpportunityForAll → http://go.wh.gov/ctxpdE

Via Kelly Grossman
Dylan Barth's insight:

1.he says primarily, its because healthcare costs so much, it takes a lot of money to just survive nowadays.h

2. It would allow us to invest in things that will pay off long run, like education and stuff

 

3. Since congress agreed on something, he was able to build off of  the discretionary spending for things like early learning programs and grants that serve to help the economy grow.

 

 

4. He seems to be giving statistical data that supports his plan and also seems to be working with both parties, the only issue is that he's focusing on a means of economic policy that might clash with classical economist philosophy.

 

 

more...
Miranda Rae Garcia's curator insight, April 28, 2014 6:53 PM

1.) We are experiencing a historic reduction in the rate of growth of healthcare costs, and that is why there is a rapid rate of decline in the deficit. 2.) The president's proposed budget would put us on the green part of his graph It would lower future deficits. 3.) Discretionary spending is the money that congress is supposed to allocate and approve where it goes. The president tries to build off of this effort while showing how he would invest in the future and things that would help the economy grow. The president tries to build off of this effort because it provides some stability for economy. One component of this initiative would be early learning, and adding slots for children around the country. 4.) Pros of this budget proposal would be helping early learning and using money to find a cure for cancer and things like that. A con would be spending all of that money and then there not being a positive outcome.

Katie Nissen's curator insight, April 29, 2014 8:00 PM

1. due to the rate of reduction in healthcare costs

2.  Lower deficits because of policies of health care costs will allow the economy to grow

3. it set limits allowing stability for his budget. He uses that to invest in things that could potentially allow the economy to grow. Early learning which is education would allows for new opportunities

4. Some pros are the ability for the both sides come together to decide on  the economy, unfortunately the President could invest in the wrong programs which will waste resources. 

Brooklyn Ward's curator insight, September 25, 2015 7:55 AM

1.The reason for the decline in the deficit is the lower spending by the public on healthcare.

2.By continuing to add more constraints on healthcare cost, the deficit  will continue to decrease.

3.The President is making compromises with congress (mostly republicans) by setting aside half the discretionary fund for military spending.

4. Pros: more money will be invested in two things government should be funding: schools and the military

Cons: the question of can they really close all the loopholes in the tax codes, and then there's the issue that the government funded healthcare doubled in cost this past year (even when the congressional budget office estimated it would decrease by nearly 30%) and the cost is estimated to nearly double again by 2016 reaching almost $120 billion.

Rescooped by Dylan Barth from AP U.S. Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Due by 4/11-Obama going it alone, pressing ahead on reforms for federal contractors with executive orders

Due by 4/11-Obama going it alone, pressing ahead on reforms for federal contractors with executive orders | Dylan Barth BHS Government | Scoop.it
President pushing contractor changes with executive orders, moving without help from Congress

Via Kelly Grossman
Dylan Barth's insight:

Obama is dealing with one of the least productive Congresses in history, to get congressional support in today's world for any person, regardless of party, is a feat in and of itself. An executive order works better for this purpose because he can go over congress and provide a coherent unified solution.

He risks Congress overturning his EO with a bill, though he has the power to veto they can still overturn that power and make his order moot.

Republicans say that he is not trying to compromise in congress. This is a problem because neither party is being cooperative in the compromising areas of government.

Some say that he has no given power to regulate this particular topic. Mostly the issue is of an Executive Order taking place of an act of congress, it wouldn't be good if the president overstepped his power limits.

Gay rights, legalization of marijuana.

Any area where money and party polarization are concerned is bound to raise some red flags with opposing viewpoints. As he might be entering his lame-duck period, it's questionable as to whether or not he should try to go against congress and be productive or just accept the inefficiency of government.

more...
Shelby Mench's curator insight, April 15, 2014 2:39 PM

1.)    Why has President Obama chosen to enact an executive order regarding pay of federal employees?

President Obama has chosen to enact an executive order regarding the pay of federal employees because he has not been able to get the support that he needs from Congress.

2.)    What are the limitations on Obama’s executive order and executive orders in general?

However there are certain limitations on Obama’s executive order and executive orders in general such as the fact that they can be put into a trial for legality and it can create a division with congress when Obama really needs them to back him!

3.)    What criticism is being levied against presidents’ use of executive orders? What is the criticism of this specific executive order?

There is criticism that is being levied against the president’s use of executive orders such as the point that Obama needs to put forward a better effort to work with congress and to step back and review the stress he is placing on other companies financially.

4.)    What policy area has the White House chosen not to address with executive orders?

There is the policy of gay rights which The White House has chosen not to address using executive orders.

5.)    Why might the Obama administration be hesitant to address this area?

The Obama administration might be hesitant to address the area because Obama does not want to lose any of the public’s support! He is hoping that the Senate will pass a bill and will be able to protect all Americans rather than just a few.

Courtney OConnor's curator insight, April 15, 2014 6:57 PM

I was absent Wednesday-Friday with no access to computer/ internet.

 

President Obama has chosen to enact an executive order due to complications compromising with Congress. This executive order would prevent contractors from retaliating against employees discussing their pay as well as require the Labor Department to require contractors to provide data regarding pay based on race and gender. His limitations are that his order may be challenged and deemed unlawful by Congress. There is criticism that President Obama may be stepping out of line by not agreeing with Congress about this decision, and that he's using his power too far. Also, Federal Contractors believe that releasing this data would call for an increase in lawsuits and the creation of a two tier system. The White House has not chosen to deal with the agenda that would protect gays and lesbians working for these Federal Contractors. He might be hesitant to address this issue due to the growing support of protection of gays and lesbians in Congress as it is and further provocation to Congress would be harmful for his administration.

Katie Nissen's curator insight, April 17, 2014 5:40 AM

President Barack Obama chosen to put in place an executive order so he can control more of the economy by keeping federal contractors from hurting employees who would like a raise. His executive order was denied by congress. The order might be considered unlawful. Republicans know that he is using his power to much and needs to be working with congress. People know that his executive order will give a burden to companies and hurt their inflow of money. The white house has not said anything about protecting gays and lesbians working from federal contractors. The white house’s goal is to spread protection to all Americans. 

Rescooped by Dylan Barth from AP U.S. Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Due by 3/28 -- Gerrymandering: the recipe for dysfunctional government?

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, Kelly Grossman
Dylan Barth's insight:

1.Gerrymandering is the redistricting of a state in order for the majority party to gain more seats in the house of representatives. It got it's name from the combination of Gerry and Salamander; the man who was first accused of unfair redrawing and the shape it looked like.

2. Many are drawn along race lines, but also include thin strips leading to other areas, strange shapes, and lines drawn to keep certain groups out.

3. Every ten years when there's a new census!

4. Using an algorithm might solve the issue, taking into account geography and population.

5. Their party would no longer get to draw the lines, so the vote might be fairer.

6. Totally! If a party has been in power since the last census, they can redraw the districts to reflect their party's presence throughout the United States. Therefore, a redrawn district might give the incumbent more likeminded people in the House and maybe even the pectoral college.

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 Dylan Barth from AP U.S. Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Due by 3/6: Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball » 2016 presidential ratings update: Nothing but questions on the Republican side

Due by 3/6: Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball » 2016 presidential ratings update: Nothing but questions on the Republican side | Dylan Barth BHS Government | Scoop.it

Via Kelly Grossman
Dylan Barth's insight:

1. I'd say that the media is looking for someone who strongly sticks with their party identification and has a potent enough personality to hold the attention of americans. The parties don't differ too much on either of these topics, as they apply differently to each party.

2. With constant reference to Christie's bridge gate scandal and historical reference used to predict Hilary's run, the actual issues are hardly touched. Moreover, it seems the article is less concerned with policy and more concerned with party loyalty and gallup polls.

3. It means that candidates are always looking to get elected or re-elected, signifying a diminishing factor in policy and a rising importance in public appeal. I fear that government may no longer be focused on helping its citizens, it's begging at their feet for the sweet taste of power.

4. Being identified this early gives a candidate more options and avenues to consider when making campaign moves, the lesser known candidates have a murky situation in that they already have the media going against them. A good start is important to any race, but burning out in the first quarter of the race will leave you in last place; advice for not only candidates but for life.

more...
Jorge Lopez0408's curator insight, April 4, 2014 10:12 AM

1. Based on this article, what would you say that the media is looking for in an ideal candidate for 2016? Is it the same for both parties? The conservitave side is the new side that has been wanting to be used and hired for the new seat of the White House. The conservitive side is wanted for the both parties to maybe have a chance to help control the economy.

2. To what extent is Sabato focused on the issues (platform) of the candidates? What the disadvantages and advantages are for the runnign canidates for the points they they will attack and what they will focu on.

3. Sabato refers to the “permanent presidential campaign.” What does this mean, and what are the implications for government? The permanent campaign is the non stop of action being attacked. The new canidates will keep running for their own worries and ideas, not for the people.

4. Do you think that there is an advantage to being identified as an early leader in the presidential race? Why or why not? Yes, the earlier you come out, the earlier your ideas spread to the people about your campaign run.

Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 14, 2014 11:56 PM

The media is looking for  both a woman candidate to run for the Democraticparty and someone fresh who has not been in the spotlight. because of this they have been keeping their eye on Hilary Clinton. However for the Republican Party, the media is looking for a clear-cut candidate as they let the scandals fall as they may. Sabato is not very interested on the party platforms of candidates, but rather their popularity and faults. He is making broad assumptions of each possible candidate and listing the general pros and cons of each.Sabato describes the permanency of campaigns by acknowledging that campaigning is a continuous process. He seems to imply that it is a good thing, and it allows voters to be more informed and aware of possible candidates.It is not an advantage to be identified early as a leader in the presidential race because this puts the candidate in the media spotlight. It also creates boredom in voters as they tire of constantly seeing information on a particular candidate.           

Lauren Sargent's curator insight, April 17, 2014 10:16 PM
So far, the media seems to be looking for candidates with successful political record, is liked by the public and their party, and isn’t too harsh on their views but also isn’t too loose. These credentials seem to be the same for both parties. They as well want a candidate with a good political record and popularity vote.Sabato is less concerned with their political platforms, because they can easily be changed, and more with their political experience and records and financial capabilities.Sabato’s reference to the “permanent presidential campaign” means that candidates now are more concerned with their media coverage and appearances when campaigning themselves. The government itself has become increasingly concerned with the media and its perception of what happens in the government and with running candidates. This causes some candidates to change their political platforms to fit what they think the media will want, which has caused some of them to become less popular.I think that there is an advantage to being known as an “early leader” in the presidential race because the leaders are the ones who other candidates will form their candidacies around. Other candidates will sway their opinions and fit what they think fits to the media and what the media wants rather than what they believe. This would not be as big of a problem for early runners because they start out on top because of their political ideologies and then gain media support, not the other way around.
Rescooped by Dylan Barth from AP U.S. Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Due by 2/20: Texan Hispanics Tilt Democratic, but State Likely to Stay Red

Due by 2/20: Texan Hispanics Tilt Democratic, but State Likely to Stay Red | Dylan Barth BHS Government | Scoop.it
Texas remains a Republican-leaning state because its white residents are becoming increasingly Republican and its large Hispanic population, though solidly Democratic, is less so than Hispanics nationally.

Via Kelly Grossman
Dylan Barth's insight:

1. Though white Texans are by far more republican than democrat, hispanics tend to lean solidly to the left. Seeing as they are a growing minority, this has major implications for liberals because they have a chance to regain the state of Texas as the population of Latin Americans grows. Hispanics and other minorities are now more abundant together than caucasians, therefore if the liberals can secure the ethnic vote, they have effectively won Texas.

2. Mostly white people are republicans and the minorities lean democrat. Yet voting citizens in Texas keep the state at a republican majority when it comes to representation.

3. The fact of the matter is, those who are involved in politics are more likely to vote republican. There may be more democrats in the state of Texas, but they are not voting and therefore cannot change the party that represents it. 

4. Plenty of polling in order to get a large enough random sample, clear instructions in more than one language so that the poll was not misunderstood, and re-checking data and polling areas in order to secure the accuracy of the poll.

more...
Shelby Payton Salkar's comment, March 27, 2014 10:22 AM
1. Democrats are looking forward that with an increase in Hispanic pop. the state may have enough Democratic votes to turn the state blue. Generally speaking, Hispanics are Democratic. As more minorities flock to America, whites are becoming a minority and may lose their typical Republican hold in Texas.<br>2. Whites are very Republican, while their Hispanic friends are mostly Democratic. In terms of the rest of the country, however, the Hispanics in Texas have more Republicans than elsewhere.
Shelby Payton Salkar's comment, March 27, 2014 10:29 AM
3 Gallup believes that Texas will not experience political realignment, the reason being Texas Hispanics are more likely not to vote. Although they hold opinions, but their lack of hands on political participation prevents Texas from being a blue state.<br> <br>4. The poll has a 1% error because the pollers checked to see if half of the surveys over cell and the other half over landline calls and then the surveyed at random..then there is the spanish polling,
Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 15, 2014 12:15 AM

The Democrats are slowly taking over texas because the minorities in texas are growing in numbers and the majority of the minorities fully support the Democrats. Though Texas is mostly Republican,  Democrats are hoping this population change will change texas into a Democratic state.  Keeping that in mind, many Hispanics are not registering to vote and because of that the minorities aren't necessarily able to vote and represent themselves when the majority votes more than the minority. This is a prime example of how participation can change the outcome of an election. The data from this article was taken by random phone call surveys by an equal number in each group asked

Rescooped by Dylan Barth from AP U.S. Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Due 4/18--Roberts Pulls Supreme Court to the Right Step by Step

Due 4/18--Roberts Pulls Supreme Court to the Right Step by Step | Dylan Barth BHS Government | Scoop.it
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. may work slowly, but he has a long-term strategy for putting his mark on the Supreme Court.

Via Kelly Grossman
Dylan Barth's insight:

1. The republican party is consistently favored including his decisionsto "declined to do away with affirmative action, gave Congress another shot at salvaging the Voting Rights Act and refused to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage." (NY Times)

.2.  Roberts has set the precedent as compromise not with liberal judged but for them so that his party may prevail. He's continued this precedent by constantly contending with other party.

3. The executive branch has certain set checks on the judicial and thepresident could use any of.these.

4. Kennedy, he's the only judge that goes between parties sometimes and the others stick with party lines.

5. Yeah, even though it's a pretty humanistic approach, republicand would argue that it's scathing invective written by the media to cast them in a bad light.

more...
Jorge Lopez0408's curator insight, April 20, 2014 8:47 PM

1. Who/what has been consistently favored in Roberts court decisions? Cite evidence to support your answer. The liberals since the liberal party is the majority than the conservative in the judicial court ruling over every conservative ruling of even small case. 

2. What is precedent and in what ways has the Roberts court largely made rulings based on precedent? Precedent is the previous establishment of the previous case which affects the choice of the cases in the future. The rulings have gone towards the liberal sides making rules about certain laws that liberal party congress member rule upon to make of law. 

3. What strategy(ies) might the President pursue to see greater success in the Court? The strategy that the president may use would be the media to cover the choices of the people to go to certain sides of the choices that the judicial branch makes upon the laws to be passed by the rule of four. 

4. Which Justice is considered the “swing vote” on the court and why? Justice Kennedy is the "swing vote" because there is already a 4 to 4 ratio of the conservative and liberal which Kennedy makes the 6 to 6 judicial vote.

5.Is there discernible bias in the way this article was written? Why, or why not? The article was written in the view of a conservative to help decrease the help many liberals receive in their vote to the upcoming laws that are against many of Obama's choices of laws that he will or will not veto against the court ruling. 

Shelby Mench's curator insight, April 22, 2014 9:46 AM

1.)  Who/what has been consistently favored in Roberts court decisions? Cite evidence to support your answer.

 

            In Roberts court decisions conservatives have been favored and he has shown a large attachment to things which he feels are planting new seeds in the justices and discusses them as a new plant.

 

2. What is precedent and in what ways has the Roberts court largely made rulings based on precedent?

 

          A precedent is when an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances. The Roberts court has largely made rulings based on precedent which favor businesses and which choose to push forward older laws.

 

3. What strategy(ies) might the President pursue to see greater success in the Court?

 

            The President might pursue attempting to persuade the justices on issues with a more liberal view. This would help as the Roberts court takes the extra votes in order to gain their votes. This would help the President to see greater success in the court.

 

4. Which Justice is considered the “swing vote” on the court and why?

            The Justice which would be considered the “swing vote” in the court would be Kennedy because he tends to vote both ways and he is typically the deciding vote.

 

5. Is there discernible bias in the way this article was written? Why, or why not?

 

            No there is no discernible bias in the way this article was written because it presents the facts and doesn’t bring in much of an opinion while giving information on both sides instead of only one.

Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 24, 2014 6:14 PM

1. Conservatives have been constantly favored in Roberts’ court decisions because he is constantly persuading the court’s more liberal justices to pass different laws in the polarized system.

2. Precedent is when a court uses a previous case to evaluate the outcome of a current case. Roberts court mainly deals with this when the case involves businesses.

3. In order for the president to gain more support for Congress, he will need to gain support from the opposing political party by perhaps letting them win smaller battles and compromising.

4. Justice Kennedy is considered the "swing vote" because he has voted for both the conservatives and liberals and he is unpredictable.

5. There is always bias in articles, but this article doesn't necessarily have that much. It sheds light on the views of both conservative and liberals.

Rescooped by Dylan Barth from AP U.S. Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Senate Balks at Obama Pick for Surgeon General

Senate Balks at Obama Pick for Surgeon General | Dylan Barth BHS Government | Scoop.it
The White House is considering putting off a Senate vote on Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, who has come under criticism from the National Rifle Association, or withdrawing the nomination altogether.

Via Kelly Grossman
Dylan Barth's insight:

1. Because he believes that guns are in his jurisdiction, and disagrees with the NRA on the issue of citizen gun rights, the NRA and the Republican party want to paint him in a bad light. They are starting a "grassroots" movement by trying to convince members to contact their senators and ask for disapproval of this man.

2. Senators are reminded of the need to represent their constituents, if their people dislike a gun regulation law, yet are  democrats, senators are put in a difficult position.

3. His blessing and nomination skew the viewpoints of Democrats by declaring a position on the issue before the party could (however stereotypically) react.

4. The president could be trying to realign his party on an issue he thinks will bring democrats together. He also risks the value of senators and the people no longer trusting him on issues if it doesn't go over well.

more...
luke jester's curator insight, April 11, 2014 6:14 PM

1. They  sent out a "grass roots alert" to millions of people so they would tell their senators to not vote for the President's nominee . They don't like the fact that the nominee is extremely against guns.

2. democrats may lose control of the Senate because Senators are voting differently then they normally would because of the NRA .

3. The President chooses the positions of people.

4. they could hold Obama's vote for surgeon general or take out the nomination from the position. they need balance nominees in order to have support from both parties.

Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 11, 2014 9:28 PM

The NRA is influencing members of congress by personally emailing the voters and trying to rally members against the Surgeon General because they don't agree with his views on gun control and many other issues. The senators reelection is at stake and if they vote with gun control, they will lose the support of the NRA. From this incident, the White House should definitely learn to choose a more fitting person to represent, one that preferably agrees with the policies of the NRA.The white house learned to approach nominations differently in order to recieve better feedback

Lauren Sargent's curator insight, April 14, 2014 10:38 PM
The NRA is concerned about the appointment of nominee Murthy because he is actively against guns. They are going directly to citizens addressing them about the nominee and asking their opinion and going to senate, trying to get the nominee removed. The NRA are concerned that if the nominee is appointed, the gun-bans in the nation will go up, decreasing their value.The Senate is trying to maintain democratic leadership by listening to their constituents which, in states such as Alaska, Louisiana, and Arkansas, are opposed to gun-banning, which puts them against the nominee.The White House try to choose candidates who will help keep a mostly equal view on arguments and won’t anger any interest groups, such as the NRA, so there won’t be a lack of executive control or support.The White House should consider what is really good for the nation and what candidates are right for the job, rather than trying to please everyone. It is impossible, especially in politics, to please everyone, so they should try to think about what the candidate can offer to the executive process and what they can possibly change. The White House learned that they tend to overestimate democratic support and lean more toward their constituents than the rest of the nation.
Scooped by Dylan Barth
Scoop.it!

Does your vote count? The Electoral College explained - Christina Greer

Does your vote count? The Electoral College explained - Christina Greer | Dylan Barth BHS Government | Scoop.it
You vote, but then what? Discover how your individual vote contributes to the popular vote and your state’s electoral vote in different ways--and see how votes are counted on both state and national levels.
Dylan Barth's insight:

1. The electoral college is used to represent states in a fair and mostly unbiased way. It was created to keep big and small states balanced. In the simplest way we could, we tried to sort out how presidents might get elected without having a large population of angry citizens.

2. The easiest way to win the election is to focus on states with the largest electoral college cross-examined with the exclusion of safe-states.

3. The house of representatives takes a vote.

4. The fact that Gore won the popular vote and after a month of debate and delay the tension and anticipation culminated in Bush winning really ticked off some people and they brought up the issue of the sometimes ineffective electoral college.

5. Satisfied? No, no one is ever satisfied with government. Content? Sure, I think that if the US is going to base its election process off of the people's votes that they need some safeguards along the way so that there is no problem of factions. And secondly, even if a person of my stature to disagree, I'd more likely than not be able to devise a better system and much less put it into place.

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Dylan Barth from AP U.S. Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Due by 2/24: Americans' Satisfaction With Economy Sours Most Since 2001

Due by 2/24: Americans' Satisfaction With Economy Sours Most Since 2001 | Dylan Barth BHS Government | Scoop.it
More Americans today are satisfied with where the nation stands on acceptance of gays and lesbians, federal taxes, and healthcare availability than were satisfied in 2001. But Americans' satisfaction with the economy has declined.

Via Kelly Grossman
Dylan Barth's insight:

1. Not exactly, the changes that have occurred are less due to a conglomeration of singular events and more so owe their existence to  a gradual changing of attitudes over time. 9/11 and the dot-com boom had little to do with any change of opinions; most americans just accepted these things after time passed and went along with their lives.

2. Yes. It's easy to see that the two parties differ the greatest on issues such as gun control, immigration, healthcare and the environment. In general, the parties meet the issues with the same level of dissatisfaction as their party should dictate. Overall, the parties keep closely to their defined lines.

3. Republicans may focus on immigration and healthcare while democrats might focus on guns and the environment. These are their areas with the least contentment and after all, the role of government is to primarily keep the people content. So if the parties can quiet their public, the party that success the most in this will hold office.

4. As with all polls and politics, data and statistics are to be taken with a grain of salt. These polls are pretty accurate, but not entirely. It is very possible that that +- 4% could control the whole nation.

more...
Hannah Larson's curator insight, February 25, 2014 9:17 AM

1. The historical events of the period have greatly affected the results of this poll. 9/11 and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan have changed American approval of our standing in the world and our foreign affairs for the worse. The end of the dot com boom and the beginning of the 2008-2009 recession significantly alterered people's views of the economy. They now disapprove of the state of the economy significantly  more than in the past.

2. For the most part these results coincide with democratic and republican views. Republicans show more approval of the state of the environment and gun policy while Democrats show more approval of social policies such as the legalization of gay marriage and Social Security and Welfare programs. I found it interesting that the two parties' approval of many issues such as quality of public education and quality of medical care are almost the same. Republicans show less concern for the environment and they do not support stricter gun laws, so these approval ratings make sense. Democrats endorse more support of scoial issuessuch as gay marriage and more government sponsored programs for the people to use. Their support of gay marriage and socil securoty and welfare makes sense. I believe both parties share the same approval or dissaproval on some issues because most people are moderate but call themselves a democrat or republican. Most take a republican view on most things and a democratic on others or vice versa.

3. Democrats will more likely favor policies such as the affordable health care act and support social welfare programs.Republicans will favor policies that involve less government control such as tax cuts and less strict gun laws.

4. This means that the data taken could be a lot closer than what is seen. Issues where the ratings seperated by 8% could lead to actual results of the same approval rating. This completely changes the readers' view on data taken over energy policies and federal taxes. Some of the data is so close that when the percentage error is taken into acoount, democrats may have more approval of an issue than republicans or vice versa. This can be seen in data taken for control of crime, quality of medical care, and race relations.

Jorge Lopez0408's curator insight, April 10, 2014 1:14 PM
Kelly Grossman's insight:

Rescoop to your own page and write a reflection on the reading in which you answer the following questions  - by class time on Monday, 2/24!

1. The article explains why Gallup chose a 13-year comparison. Do the historical events of this period explain the changes in public opinion? Why or why not? Yes it does since the change of ideas and problems to change first. The the shift in problems for others have shifted from governmental taxation to Gay and Lesbian rights of marriage.

2. Examine the chart comparing Democrats' and Republicans' levels of satisfaction. Do these results coincide with your expectations (based on the textbooks' depiction of American liberalism and conservatism)? Why or why not? Yes they do since the republicans have their own likes and dislikes and vice-versa, for the democrats. The changes and laws placed that are new will effect the mind shifts of the people of the certain party that would affect their future.

3. Based on these results, which public policy changes are likely to be supported by each party? The Military and terrorist defensive increased by both parties to lessen the fear of their lives. The future and safety of the country is their first priority.

4. The sampling error for this poll is +/- 4%. What does this mean, and how might it impact your interpretation of the data presented? It isn't too much of a sampling error that affects the data by the error. The 4% doesn't effect much of the side i believe in as i see the data well built in how the percentage of the both parties was taken.

Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 15, 2014 12:04 AM

Yes, because ever since the economic downturn and 9/11 Americans have altered their views towards the economy and has lost confidence in the government and its policies.

Yes, because Democrats seem to be more for liberalism while Republicans are concerned lean towards conservatism.

Republicans would strengthen the economy, set immigration laws, and limit health care while Democrats would set strict gun regulations and preserve the economy.

It means that there is a possibility of a small percent error. However, it has no impact on the major interpretation of each side for each topic.