Government and Economics
2.1K views | +0 today
Follow
Government and Economics
Make a substantive (about a paragraph) comment in response to an article, or a classmate once a month for a 50 pt. grade.
Curated by Joel Leagans
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Joel Leagans
Scoop.it!

Think tank: Congress, you fix the economy

Think tank: Congress, you fix the economy | Government and Economics | Scoop.it
A new initiative by the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities launching today is refocusing on the role of fiscal policy in the nation�s economic recovery. It's about time.
more...
Michael Newton's comment, April 8, 2014 8:32 AM
Congress ha been fighting these reforms for long enough now that you'd think they'd clue in the fact that it wasn't going too well for them. Even if they were getting the results they wanted, how long do they think they can hold off things like Obamacsre? If you take a big step back an look at the state of their decisions and the state of the economy it's really pitiful and childish seeming of them. If it weren't for the incumbency advantage, there is little doubt in my mind that the congressmen wouldn't have to wait long to be replaced, takin less popular opinions on economic and social reforms, it's a wonder they're still in the house at all.
Michael Newton's comment, April 8, 2014 8:32 AM
Congress ha been fighting these reforms for long enough now that you'd think they'd clue in the fact that it wasn't going too well for them. Even if they were getting the results they wanted, how long do they think they can hold off things like Obamacsre? If you take a big step back an look at the state of their decisions and the state of the economy it's really pitiful and childish seeming of them. If it weren't for the incumbency advantage, there is little doubt in my mind that the congressmen wouldn't have to wait long to be replaced, takin less popular opinions on economic and social reforms, it's a wonder they're still in the house at all.
Michael Newton's comment, April 8, 2014 8:32 AM
Congress ha been fighting these reforms for long enough now that you'd think they'd clue in the fact that it wasn't going too well for them. Even if they were getting the results they wanted, how long do they think they can hold off things like Obamacsre? If you take a big step back an look at the state of their decisions and the state of the economy it's really pitiful and childish seeming of them. If it weren't for the incumbency advantage, there is little doubt in my mind that the congressmen wouldn't have to wait long to be replaced, takin less popular opinions on economic and social reforms, it's a wonder they're still in the house at all.
Scooped by Joel Leagans
Scoop.it!

Why Obamacare Was Worth It*

Why Obamacare Was Worth It* | Government and Economics | Scoop.it
The ACA deadline is here. And It's Still OK to Feel Good About it. 
more...
Melissa Aleman's comment, April 8, 2014 2:35 PM
The Affordable Care Act is too fresh to really be able to distinguish what really can come from it. The Act has had a very rough start with the difficult sign ups and crashes. It has been helpful in some ways allowing people to receive what they can't afford but the lasting outcomes are still unknown. Whether the Affordable Care Act is good for society or not will always be a debate, but if Obama doesnt present it in a new way and fix the flaws, then their won't be as many people enrolling for it.
Melissa Aleman's curator insight, April 8, 2014 3:14 PM

The Affordable Care Act is too fresh to really be able to distinguish what really can come from it. The Act has had a very rough start with the difficult sign ups and crashes. It has been helpful in some ways allowing people to receive what they can't afford but the lasting outcomes are still unknown. Whether the Affordable Care Act is good for society or not will always be a debate, but if Obama doesnt present it in a new way and fix the flaws, then their won't be as many people enrolling for it.

Mayline Zhong's comment, May 21, 2014 11:11 AM
There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the Affordable Care Act. Despite its rough start and negative publicity, I believe it will pull through. The pros will ultimately outweigh the cons. The two goals, to improve economic security and to reform medical care in general, are goals worth fighting for. You cannot deny the fact that as a result of the ACA, more people have been able to obtain health care and more people have received their money's worth.
Scooped by Joel Leagans
Scoop.it!

Why a Jeb Bush Presidential Run Would Be Hard on the GOP

Why a Jeb Bush Presidential Run Would Be Hard on the GOP | Government and Economics | Scoop.it
Jeb Bush is having a moment. For two months or so, as Chris Christie’s presidential fortunes have appeared abridged, people who have supported the New Jersey governor (or at least are predisposed to support him) have started mentioning the former two-term Florida governor as a possible 2016 candidate. Should the...
more...
Brian Cohen's comment, April 3, 2014 10:22 PM
Jeb Bush seems to be a very strong candidate when it comes to running for president in a couple of years. The idea that he is related to two previous presidents can be a good and bad thing for him. Republican voters could associate him with his brother and father and say that taxes will be raised, but those that liked the Bush's could also vote for Jeb. He is definitely going to give Chris Christi a run for his money, but is it going to be enough to be the presidential candidate for the Republican party? I guess we'll have to wait and see...
Emma Foster's comment, April 4, 2014 3:15 AM
It would definitely be in the GOP’s favor to field a candidate with a more… moderate, I suppose, stance that has dominated the party recently. They could potentially expand their appeal considerably, maybe attract a small handful that aren’t wealthy white males. Coming after the recent behavior of numerous Republican congressmen and state politicians, Jeb Bush’s more reasoned stances on government and policy are welcome. Unfortunately, they are also probably what would stop him from making it past the primaries. The effects of his association with the rest of the Bush family on a potential campaign are an interesting thing to consider: no doubt that absurd public demand that relatives be accountable for each other’s actions would hamper him at times, but nonetheless the Bushes are a prominent political family, and those tend to stay in power because they have the ties and clout to weather some negative opinion.
Madi Gordon's comment, April 7, 2014 1:17 PM
Oh Jeb Bush... Do we really need another Bush in the White House? That question is debatable depending who you are. Even though Jeb has the governor experience and a relationship with Hispanic voters that is crucial to the GOP, he is known for his defiance against GOP's stances on issues such as immigration and education. The author of the article also brings up Jeb's stoic personality and compares him to President Eisenhower. I think it will be interesting to watch and see whether or not Jeb Bush officially tosses his hat into the ring
Scooped by Joel Leagans
Scoop.it!

Apocalyptish

Apocalyptish | Government and Economics | Scoop.it
“THE four horsemen of the apocalypse": that was the disparaging appraisal by Richard Tol of the University of Sussex of a report published in Yokohama on March...
more...
Hollis lopez's curator insight, April 7, 2014 10:51 PM

Climate change and global warming is becoming more of a problem as temeratures rise. As it becomes hotter, it becomes harder to grow crops which hurts jobs in all aspects of agriculture. With less jobs, its more affecting the United States GDP. Besides the economic standpoint, more importantly, water is drying up. global warming is an issue that needs attention and it can be helped by government spending to invest in better and cleaner energy sources.

nazlia's comment, April 8, 2014 12:31 AM
As climate changes and global warming becomes an increasingly bigger problem, it also become more and more inevitable. It will be difficult and expensive to alter lifestyles to be more 'Earth-friendly' . Precautions should have been taken much earlier before the problem became popular. It is interesting that the warmer climate change will lengthen growing season and produce more crops. Although this is a very helpful positive outcome of warmer climate change, I believe the negative outcomes are greater.
Mayline Zhong's comment, May 21, 2014 1:40 PM
It bothers me that some people can be so ignorant. The fact that our climate is changing is apparent. In the past, people were able to blow it off as misinterpreted data or exaggerated conjectures, but it is way past that point now. If people are still in denial about global warming they are actually stupid. No offense. The effects of climate change are extensive as seen in this article and if we don't do something to stop it now it will soon become irreversible. Well, it already is kind of irreversible.
Rescooped by Joel Leagans from Bellaire World Geography
Scoop.it!

‘Downton Abbey’ Democrats May Cost their Party the Senate

‘Downton Abbey’ Democrats May Cost their Party the Senate | Government and Economics | Scoop.it
When it comes to green gentry liberalism, think of an Americanized version of the PBS hit—where everyone knows his or her place, and our betters look best.
more...
Thomas Dudey's comment, April 4, 2014 4:13 PM
The article talks about the argument over the Keystone pipeline as an important issue involving the environment. The author of this article notes the public’s desire to keep the pipeline in order to produce more jobs for the common man over giving it all up for the sake of making the Earth a cleaner place. While I see the author’s point of view on the side of short-term practicality, I believe that we need to stop continuing to sacrifice the environment before it is too late for the Earth to recover at all. The keystone pipeline could cause a huge risk to the environment through possible oil spills as well as the high greenhouse gas emissions that it produces, destroying wide areas of the environment as well as helping to cause global warming.
David Miller's comment, April 4, 2014 11:14 PM
It is imperative that a politician never go directly against any sort of energy source specific. The importance of the democrats supporting Keystone is very high. The people need to know their place in all of this but keep stepping out of line. The republicans forwardness with energy may give them the upperhand with this company and the votes. The failure in the past years has caused a switch in sides for the republicans which cold end up being very costly.
Madi Gordon's comment, April 7, 2014 12:49 PM
The democrats that oppose the Keystone pipeline remind me of the prominent aristocratic family of Downton Abbey, while middle class Americans who are not in opposition of the pipeline remind me of the staff downstairs. This article explains how out of touch liberalists are with the views of the average american. I find it interesting that this oversight of the majority of the american people will cause the democrats seats in the senate.
Rescooped by Joel Leagans from Bellaire World Geography
Scoop.it!

America’s Most Puzzling Governor

America’s Most Puzzling Governor | Government and Economics | Scoop.it
Thanks to her state’s special gift for making headlines of the Can you believe what they did this time? variety, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has been in and out of the national spotlight since she assumed office in 2009—most recently just last week when she vetoed a bill that would have allowed business owners to refuse to serve gays on religious...
more...
Lauren Heim's curator insight, April 16, 2014 10:29 PM

we actually talked about this today in Gov & Law. Arizona has some serious explaining to do when it comes to the bills they're passing dealing with the constitution and the rights of its people. Especially since no one could come up with a scenario where religion was in jeopardy and that their law was decriminalizing gays and lesbians.

Abigail Beinborn's comment, April 19, 2014 5:31 PM
This is a great article talking about what we talked about in class. There are a lot of laws Arizona is trying to pass dealing with anchor babies and the border. Do you think it is right?
Rescooped by Joel Leagans from Bellaire World Geography
Scoop.it!

Democrats Eye Governor Races for 2014 Gains | RealClearPolitics

Democrats Eye Governor Races for 2014 Gains | RealClearPolitics | Government and Economics | Scoop.it
more...
Anthony Nguyen's comment, April 4, 2014 5:36 PM
With the senate and governor races approaching this year, the Republicans have to protect 22 of the 36 governors' seats up while the Democracts only have to protect 14. The author of this article evidently focuses on the advantages that the Democrats have over the Repubilcans. Since gubernatorial pickups would prove useful for the Democratic party, it is understandable that the Dems are striving to win several states, especially with the president is continuously conflicting with congress. It is interesting to see the strategies the Democrats are willing to execute such as exploiting the Walker scandal in Wisconsin. However, the author only explains the Democractice advantages, so it would be interesting to see the position of the Republicans.
Scooped by Joel Leagans
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 | Government and Economics | 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...
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 Joel Leagans
Scoop.it!

Ted Cruz Just Made Life Miserable for Republican Leaders Once Again

Ted Cruz Just Made Life Miserable for Republican Leaders Once Again | Government and Economics | Scoop.it
The Senate passed a measure to raise the debt ceiling, but not before two Republican leaders had to cast perilous votes.
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.
Scooped by Joel Leagans
Scoop.it!

Eight things ‘Downton Abbey’ can teach us about the modern economy

Eight things ‘Downton Abbey’ can teach us about the modern economy | Government and Economics | Scoop.it
The British TV drama is paying homage to economic forces that apply just as neatly to the 21st century world.
more...
Timothy Shields's comment, April 1, 2014 8:20 PM
I have personally never seen this show but i think it is so special and amazing how shows can portray a deeper meaning within it with this show it displays the message of econimcs in the show in i like how it shows the comparison of how economics was spwcial in 1900s and pretty much being used in the same way also it shows the influence of new technology not only how it can affect your life but also how it affects the economy in the U.S BY IMPROVING IT FOR THE BETTER
rachel's comment, April 7, 2014 10:26 AM
The article dicusses the econimic themes which affect Downton Abbey. Set in the early 1900s, Downton Abbey and it's characters are not isolated from the econimic times. And while it is a fictional family, the econic problems they face are realistic of their times. Many of their problems such as ms.Padmore's aversion to the new technology reveal a parallel to the consistant problem of keeping up with the ever changing times. Also the issuers which Lord Grantam faces as to managing the large estate show a paraelle between the fictional story line and the econmic problems which stay fairly constant throughout the deacades. The show shines a light upon the affects of the econmy which is similar to the problems which today we face in the 21st century.
Lauren Friederman's comment, April 7, 2014 9:44 PM
I find this article fascinating in that it draws so many parallels between 20th century Britain and present-day America. The article makes many relevant points. It states that workers must adapt to technological changes, or risk being left behind. The example from the show is the invention of the beater. Structural unemployment in America is on the rise. The level of technology is increasing faster than the number of workers who are educated on the uses of the new technology. It is important to invest in the company you create as this ensures you a long term financial return. If you sucked the company dry, then there would the return would be much less in the long run. This article suggests that treating employees well is timeless. Loyal employees are likely to do better work, that hasn't changed in a century and it isn't likely to in the future. The coolest thing about this article is that it illustrates how timeless economics are. The principles of economics in the 1900s are much the same principles which govern economics today. This shows that economics consists of a series of rational decisions based upon certain principles which have persisted since the dawn of civilization. Recently, we have over complicated these decisions with the broken American political system. If we could just get back to basic economics, we could begin to fix the economy.
Scooped by Joel Leagans
Scoop.it!

Hillary's question: not if, but how

Hillary's question: not if, but how | Government and Economics | Scoop.it
Let’s be clear about this much: no matter what the soothsayers on cable TV tell you, Hillary Clinton is no more likely to clear the Democratic field and avoid a primary in 2016 than Dennis Rodman is to become her secretary of state. Walter Mondale couldn’t pull that off in 1984, and Al Gore couldn’t do it in 2000, and the conditions for Washington-anointed frontrunners have only gotten exponentially harder since then.
more...
Tiffany Wang- AP Gov's comment, February 16, 2014 7:28 PM
There is no doubt that people want Hilary to run in 2016. If she decides to run for President she will have to change her campaign tactics. This time she should employ a more grassroots campaign, à la Obama '08/'10. She also needs to take a stand on important issues because that makes her seem more authentic.
Katherine Banks's comment, February 16, 2014 11:25 PM
this article like it's title is saying not "if" Hilary runs but "when" she runs if she wants to really get the voters in her court she'll need to change up her game. Democrats and their agendas have changed since when she first attempted to run for president, she'll need to do something like distance herself from the big banks and businesses before the election or it will be to late to cut ties. As the article states she needs to incorporate traditional ideals with the changes of today to win the election in 2016.
Olivia LaPadula's comment, February 17, 2014 4:28 PM
I don't like how this article calls Hillary a "celebrated stateswoman" because the idea of a female presidents strikes up a lot more excitement than anything else (it worked pretty well for Sarah Palin with the idea of the first female vice president until she open her mouth). Hillary Clinton is smart enough to know how to run in the 2016 election, she needs to cover her ground now with wall street buddies and washington big shots so when election time comes around it'll be her time to shine on the grass roots campaign. To say Hillary Clinton doesn't know what she's doing is such an understatement because our future first lady knows that excited and amazing support that will generated from women when she decides to run. Don't underestimate her because Clinton has be gunning for the presidential seat for a very long time and she's not going to lose it this time.
Scooped by Joel Leagans
Scoop.it!

Carville: Days ahead for Dems not so dark

Carville: Days ahead for Dems not so dark | Government and Economics | Scoop.it
OPINION | We’ve got a shot to have a better year than some might think.
more...
Anthea Wilson's curator insight, February 16, 2014 11:34 PM

When aren't the days for Democrats dark? I feel like this is a recurring thing. Democrats are always in the doghouse for something, it's nearly impossible to keep up with the amount of scandals and scrutiny. It almost makes me want to switch political parties. Almost. 

Michael Newton's comment, February 17, 2014 1:25 AM
It's a fallacy to say that the democratic days aren't dark because the republican days are darker. This article is just a democratic fantasy and delusion as embarrassing as the XBOX 360 vs. the PS3 debates. It smells like the making up of reasons in order to convince yourself. Government approval is at an all time low across the board, not just with republicans. I've always had the opinion that the party system is stupid and maybe people are finally figuring it out. Maybe something is about to change.
Nghi Bui's comment, February 17, 2014 4:09 PM
While everyone is going off ridiculing and getting angry at the Democrats' approach to things, it can be assured that this opposition is not as strong as that against the Republicans. The Repubs have a predominant reputation among the people, the stereotypes that they're white, old and close minded have been going on for ages. This keeps people from avoiding to agree with the Democrats. Also Obamacare is resolving and working according to plan (slowly) so its approval rating may not be that low after all. No matter how much hatred Demos receive, it's not as heavy as the Repubs'.
Scooped by Joel Leagans
Scoop.it!

2014: The Year of John Kerry

2014: The Year of John Kerry | Government and Economics | Scoop.it
If the Obama Administration brings about transformative change during the remainder of its existence, Kerry is likely to be its agent.
more...
Ron Gadot's comment, February 11, 2014 8:41 PM
I think that while it is true that John Kerry has almost been handed the world's conflicts on a silver platter to deal with and promote Obama's second term, he has to be careful in not overstepping his boundaries. The Syria peace talks must be mediated and the Israel-Palestine talks must be aided but if Kerry and other diplomats force their hands on these issues for the simple sake of leaving a U.S imprint on the solutions and not for the sake of leaving the world a safer more peaceful place by 2016, then maybe the Obama administration would be better suited in focusing its attentions domestically after all
Tiffany Wang- AP Gov's comment, March 28, 2014 11:35 AM
. If Obama's administration is going to get something done during his second term, it's not going to be on the home front. However, he Secretary of State looks like he may break through on the international/diplomatic front. There are a number of diplomatic issues facing the world this year and Kerry is going to have his hands full. When it comes to Syria, Iran, and of course the ever present Israel/Palestine issues he must use a delicate approach and not overstep his bounds.
Scooped by Joel Leagans
Scoop.it!

Obama on ACA: ‘Armageddon has not arrived'

Obama on ACA: ‘Armageddon has not arrived' | Government and Economics | Scoop.it
President Barack Obama celebrated the end of the Affordable Care Act’s first open enrollment period by announcing that at least 7.1 million Americans have signed up for insurance through exchanges.“No, the Affordable Care Act hasn’t fixed our long broken health care system, but this law has made our health care system a lot better,”...
more...
Jolie Starr's comment, April 3, 2014 10:10 PM
I don't think that anything in this article really has me believing in the Affordable Care Act any more than I was. Obama plainly stated that there are going to be glitches in the system, and all the Democrats are running on right now is the numbers. Numbers of people who sign up will not tell how affective the act is, so only time will tell.
Taylor Moser's comment, April 3, 2014 10:16 PM
To ''me, this article doesnt have me completely convinced. There is no new evidence stated in the article that no one has heard before. Although the Affordable Care Act has ultimately been successful, there is no doubt that things have gone wrong for President Obama. In the end, I was not impressed with this article. It was the same old story on a topic that people are no longer interested in.
Rabika Rehman's curator insight, April 8, 2014 2:22 AM

There's nothing really new or interesting about this article. Obama mentions that health care reform has made our health system a lot better. His speeches played a big part in convincing people to sign up. At the end approximately 7 million Americans signed up. So it turned out a success after all. But most of the people are more concerned about immigration reform than health care reform. This is sort of an old news.

Scooped by Joel Leagans
Scoop.it!

Why Charity Can’t Replace the Safety Net

Why Charity Can’t Replace the Safety Net | Government and Economics | Scoop.it
Conservatives like to argue that if we trim the social safety net, private charities will step in and tend to the needy. Paul Ryan—he of the soup kitchen photo-op—especially loves to extol the virtues of volunteers and philanthropy. So I was pleased to see this new piece in Democracy by...
more...
Melissa Aleman's comment, April 8, 2014 2:50 PM
I agree with what the article is saying. You can't rely on charities when bad economic situations like recession hit. The power of the government is definitely greater and more dependable than that of charities. It acts as a back up when times go for the worst. Its not such a reassuring thing looking at history that charities will be there to donate when they need it most.
Melissa Aleman's curator insight, April 8, 2014 3:14 PM

I agree with what the article is saying. You can't rely on charities when bad economic situations like recession hit. The power of the government is definitely greater and more dependable than that of charities. It acts as a back up when times go for the worst. Its not such a reassuring thing looking at history that charities will be there to donate when they need it most.

Mayline Zhong's comment, May 21, 2014 1:51 PM
Don't you think it's a bit idealistic to think that private charities alone could save our country? This article makes a lot of excellent points. If we are in a recession and the charities we are supposedly relying on also go bankrupt, what happens to us then? More people succumb to the recession, leading to more charities falling, which in turn results in more people suffering again. It's a never ending cycle. The only plausible solution would be to also have government aid for the needy that would act as an automatic stabilizer.
Scooped by Joel Leagans
Scoop.it!

The Newest Trick in Paul Ryan’s Draconian Budget

The Newest Trick in Paul Ryan’s Draconian Budget | Government and Economics | Scoop.it
Paul Ryan’s budgets always involve a little sleight of hand. In past years, for instance, he’s outlined elaborate plans for cutting taxes, without explaining how he actually planned to pay for them in order to close the deficit. Today, Ryan’s House Budget Committee is out with its latest spending blueprint....
more...
Ron Gadot's comment, April 7, 2014 12:14 AM
It seems to me that while Ryan's intentions are good for the long run resurgence of the economy (at least I hope, seeing as how most of the GOP's moves recently have been political ploys to gain points in upcoming elections) I think he is relying on too much "macroeconomic fiscal policy". While lowering interest rates logically makes it easier for the private sector to invest (something we all learned ourselves in macro class) in reality, his budget would be risking the already unstable presents of those that require entitlement benefits like Medicaid because his tax cuts would require the government to make up for the revenue loss by cutting spending in those areas, which relates to something else we all learned in macro class, if you want to expand your economy, you don't lower spending. Overall I think his budget is a little too classically conservative and is more focused on gaining points with fatcat businessman as opposed to legitimately creating jobs between now and 2024 (the proposed date that America would see the rare species "surplus" once again)
Nathan Hsu's comment, April 7, 2014 12:15 AM
Ryan's new budget plan is almost a joke for April Fool's Day. It is that bad. He assumes that cutting the deficit would plump the economy by lowering interest rates and making it easier for the private sector to invest. A faster-growing economy almost certainly means higher, not lower, interest rates as the Fed starts putting on the brakes to avoid overheating. His idea to increase the tax cuts without explaining how to pay for them makes no sense. Home economics do not work for the federal government, and all Paul Ryan's "draconian" budget will do is make our economy worse for middle and lower class citizens.
Lee Lorenz's comment, April 8, 2014 9:49 AM
Ryan's policy is very very conservative seeing as he himself is a libertarian. He knows that this budget is not going to 100 percent pass but this is the bones of what he would like. He knows that he cannot get everything that he wants, but he can try by making it seem that he really wants all of that when in reality he know he will not get all of it. The budget cuts are very extreme, but it seems as if Ryan knows this. This budget may be too conservative, but things can change
Scooped by Joel Leagans
Scoop.it!

Republicans have a better than 80 percent chance of winning the Senate

Republicans have a better than 80 percent chance of winning the Senate | Government and Economics | Scoop.it
So says the new Senate model from the Monkey Cage blog.
more...
Osama Arif's comment, April 6, 2014 9:06 PM
I agree with Ron. Politicians, Republicans and Democrats, are almost always so focused on winning elections that they forget that they were elected by the people to lead this country. Also, I think that Republicans winning the senate in 2014 will lead to even more gridlock. Even though both houses might of Congress may be controlled by the same party in the near future, Obama will still be President till 2016. Any legislation that Republicans pass has to be signed into law by the President. Overriding a veto is difficult for any party because it requires a two thirds majority in both houses. I wish Republicans would realize that regardless of how they fair in the congressional elections, they are going to have to cooperate with Obama if they want to accomplish anything in the next two years.
Katherine Banks's comment, April 7, 2014 1:02 AM
i understand that it is believed that republicans will take the senate do to the countries growing disinterest in the democratic party and the way they have handled the issues that have come in the past six years. However it is in my opinion very unlikely that the democratic party will loose the senate to the republican party because the republican party has already had control of the senate and as we saw with the government shut down they are obviously not doing a good job with the power they have so it seems more likely that republicans will loose the senate to democrats. they had their chance to show how well they will work for the country but they haven't shown the country any real improvement.
Jiahao Chen's comment, April 7, 2014 4:07 PM
People would prefer Democrats win the Senate? l mean its like a round game, Democrats and Republicans are exchanging to have the control of both House and the Senate, if Democrats got the control of Senate, i would say thats very influential for Obama, but Democrats are not making enough money though....we are more on a short of money, we do need some more money, so l wouldn't say it's a bad thing to have Republican in control of Senate, at least they are more progressive and productive in making money for the country???It should be a game for balancing the powers, hope everything is good in the government....
Rescooped by Joel Leagans from Bellaire World Geography
Scoop.it!

The once and future currency

The once and future currency | Government and Economics | Scoop.it
“LUMPY, unpredictable, potentially large”: that was how Tim Geithner, then head of the New York Federal Reserve, described the need for dollars in emerging...
more...
Jiahao Chen's comment, April 7, 2014 4:00 PM
The dollar’s position is “suboptimal but stable and self-reinforcing,” Mr Prasad says so....I think exchange of currency is not as good as what we think, it is not a ideal exchange of money, what we supposed to do should be something like economic ways, what we expecting is trading more and more investments and building up new firms would increase in the money inflow and also increase the value of US currency, since too much money directly exchange would naturally depreciate the value, it's not a big problem though but i would cause problem if we are not dealing with it...And free exchange, is not as good as free trade, it would not even be helpful to our economic situation right now.......People need dollars......everyone wanna keep dollars in pocket, but should be in a smart way.
Melissa Aleman's comment, April 8, 2014 3:03 PM
After reading this, what I received from the article is that America wants to expand. America wants to be able to pull other countries into the economy and build trading relationships that could be beneficial all around. I feel like this might be a good yet risky opportunity/idea because it would be good for the country to branch out somewhat to other economies other than just the ones we are associated with now. The dollar is a very important and strong currency in not just our economy, but others as well in the market worldwide and if America decides to expand, it could result in positives making their mark in other economies. Although it may all seem like it would be good to expand, it might not as well. It could be too big of a risk to take and looking at our economy compared to others, we are pretty well off, doing fine.
Melissa Aleman's curator insight, April 8, 2014 3:15 PM

After reading this, what I received from the article is that America wants to expand. America wants to be able to pull other countries into the economy and build trading relationships that could be beneficial all around. I feel like this might be a good yet risky opportunity/idea because it would be good for the country to branch out somewhat to other economies other than just the ones we are associated with now. The dollar is a very important and strong currency in not just our economy, but others as well in the market worldwide and if America decides to expand, it could result in positives making their mark in other economies. Although it may all seem like it would be good to expand, it might not as well. It could be too big of a risk to take and looking at our economy compared to others, we are pretty well off, doing fine.

Rescooped by Joel Leagans from Bellaire World Geography
Scoop.it!

This is why the Fed should start worrying about inflation again

This is why the Fed should start worrying about inflation again | Government and Economics | Scoop.it
The unemployment rate is about to hit 6.5 percent. Does that mean inflation is on its way?
more...
Linh Tran's comment, April 6, 2014 3:51 PM
I dont think that it's a bad idea to increase the inflation a bit. When inflation is higher, unemployment rate goes down, and that's better for the economy as unemployment rate is pretty high right now. The feds shouldn't worry too much about inflation right now but more about unemployment instead.
Lauren Friederman's comment, April 7, 2014 9:58 PM
Employing people is more important than concern for the marginal fluctuation of inflation levels. That's not to say however that a high inflation rate wouldn't have devastating effects on the economy. It is important to keep the unemployment rate low, which also helps to curb inflation as Molly said.
nazlia's comment, April 8, 2014 12:42 AM
Inflation and unemployment are both negative aspects of the government and are almost unavoidable but can be preventable. They do not necessarily cause each other but unemployment should be a priority to be solved since inflation is an unstable part of government.
Rescooped by Joel Leagans from Bellaire World Geography
Scoop.it!

No end in sight

No end in sight | Government and Economics | Scoop.it
THE trade agreement the 12 members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) hope to reach is to be “ambitious”, “comprehensive”, “high-standard” and...
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Joel Leagans
Scoop.it!

The Origin of 'Liberalism'

The Origin of 'Liberalism' | Government and Economics | 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.
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 Joel Leagans
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 | Government and Economics | 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.
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.
Scooped by Joel Leagans
Scoop.it!

Charles C. W. Cooke - Wendy Davis’s Non-Campaign

Charles C. W. Cooke - Wendy Davis’s Non-Campaign | Government and Economics | Scoop.it
What is the case for her again?
more...
Emma Foster's comment, February 18, 2014 12:45 AM
Should it really come as a surprise that someone who seems uncertain as to which party she really belongs to and whose only claim to fame is a single filibuster, the resulting media attention which she is attempting to ride to the governorship, is wildly contradictory and vague about her plans and values should she be elected? It was one thing to say “We stand with Wendy” when seemed to be synonymous with supporting pro-choice measures in Texas. However, her apparently staunch support of that cause has faded into silence on the issue, and the subsequent statements have been those of a woman trying to convince voters that they should, for some reason, remember that she exists and decide that she ought to be governor. I oppose virtually every stated goal of Greg Abbott, but at least he’s clear and consistent on what he stands for. Wendy Davis is nothing of the sort, and I sincerely hope that the Democratic candidacy is not wasted on her.
Ally Ryf's comment, March 26, 2014 10:28 PM
The jump from filibustering for the second amendment to lobbyng for open gun policy is extreme in my opinion. I think it makes some people uncomfortable to fully pledge their support to W. Davis because her position was relatively liberal and democratic at first. But now this gun policy that she is supporting makes her seem more conservative and Republican. This makes me question her motives behind the policies and proposals that she supports. It seems as though she is doing this to gain widespread support from all groups of politically active Americans.
DeeDee Han's comment, March 28, 2014 3:38 PM
<br>It is very unfortunate that Wendy Davis has not been able to run an effective campaign. She made a good name for herself from her filibuster, but since she announced her candidature for governor of Texas, it seems like she's been trying to change her public views. She has realized that her views on abortion as demonstrated by the filibuster are not popular, so she's trying to change public perception. I don't approve of people who project one image of themselves and then try to change their image once they realize the original image is unpopular. I don't know what to think about her after reading this article, but it looks like the Republicans will take Texas again (of course).
Scooped by Joel Leagans
Scoop.it!

Why So Much Anarchy? | RCW

Why So Much Anarchy? | RCW | Government and Economics | Scoop.it
more...
Jatoriyae DuPree's comment, March 21, 2014 1:36 PM
Without a stable supply of resources and the lack of an institution there is bound to be anarchy. There are many factors that have caused a rise in anarchy. The people have become more informed thanks to the innovation in technology. The lack of stable institution has a left a gaping hole in the country and left room for the power struggle. Religious beliefs have always caused friction between people and can easily insight the urban poor to rebel against "oppressors." You can find the most anarchy in underdeveloped countries that have turned away from progress like Africa and the middle east. Not only do some lack institution but some are so feeble that they can not hop to satisfy the population under their rule.
Jatoriyae DuPree's comment, March 21, 2014 1:45 PM
I give the writer kudos for saying that some of his predictions were wrong. The reason that the United States hasn't fallen into anarchy because we are a country that history smiles on progress and we have a strong institution that protects our basic human rights and economic rights. Many other countries are behind us and are still having civil wars. The people are just becoming educated and with education there is change. But with the rigid force that is a dictatorship or authoritarian government there has to be a violent rebellion to over throw the rule and claim some civility.
nazlia's comment, April 8, 2014 12:49 AM
The countries that do have much anarchy are different starting from the roots when compared to the United States. As he points out, imperialism, colonialism, feeble identities, not institutions. America has always been united by being proud of our nation, culture, etc. We are very diverse but the thought of freedom and justice binds us.
Scooped by Joel Leagans
Scoop.it!

Live by the CBO ...

Live by the CBO ... | Government and Economics | Scoop.it
Washington’s number-crunchers put the White House in quite a spot on Obamacare.
more...
Linh Phan's comment, February 10, 2014 6:13 PM
The recent report from the CBO about Obamacare would reduce the labor force, which means higher unemployment. This is not very surprising because people who do not make enough money to pay for the health care and are not eligible for subsidy will quit their jobs to get free health care and another government program.
Anthony Nguyen's comment, February 10, 2014 9:28 PM
It does seem as if the CBO ignored as Carney states, "some favorable effects of the law", and criticizes the negative effects of the act. Though 8.1 million jobs were supposedly created, the government shouldn't ignore the fact that 2.3 millions jobs will be lose in the future. The CBO explains how the ACA discourages workers, which will increase unemployment causing a negative impact on our economy later on. We don't want this to happen so the White House and Democrats need to accept the flaws of the law. If no solution is met, we can only wait to see what happens in the future.
Nghi Bui's comment, March 27, 2014 11:23 PM
CBO is reevaluating their support for Obama Care. They've tried to prove that the act would reduce health care costs and deficits but "living by the CBO, dying by CBO", their usual findings also means high unemployment...due to discouraged workers. If people think they're easily getting taken care of, they won't be anxious when they lose their job. That's pitiful- to be a grown up and VERY dependent. Others justify that adults with children will just spend more time with their children but still working to support the family, but what about single adults? Like hello, is the government that generous/naive to throw cash in the air and anger doctors? I think yes (at least Obama's people). In a way, it's a good bill, there are still doubts...I don't know, let's just wait...I mean other countries like Japan does fine with national healthcare.