1. What are the reasons OMB Deputy Director Brian Deese gives for the rapid rate of decline in the deficit (debt-GDP ratio)? Brian Deese explains that that the rapid decline in the debt gdp ratio can be attributed to the nationalization of health care stagnating the rate of growth of health care cost.
2. According to Mr. Deese, how would the president's proposed budget for 2015 affect future deficits? Explain. Deese sees the proposed presidential budget as a way of reducing the deficit even more so than the fast track it is currently on by eliminating economic loopholes and investing in the growth of our economy through elements like infrastructure.
3. How does the president’s budget try to build on Congress’s effort to compromise in the allocation of discretionary spending? Provide a description of at least one component of this initiative. The president is trying to build on this effort to compromise in discretionary spending by “investing” in our economy with positive initiatives, one of which being the networking of American manufacturing, another being early childhood education which is said to have excellent return in the long run.
4. Knowing that you do not have all of the pertinent information to make a fully-informed decision, what do you see as the pros and cons of this budget proposal? The pros of the budget proposal are fairly obvious. The debt seems to decrease and the investment in our economy would increase, giving us a high future return rate. The cons are found in the principle of nationalization of healthcare itself, which I am against. I believe it is not the government’s duty to be responsible for man’s healthcare, and I especially do not think that it should be forcefully given to all instead of made available to handfuls which need it.
The president believes that nothing is getting done in Congress. The executive order he is enacting aims to end discrimination among federal contractors without drafting a bill to pass through Congress. His limit on his own executive order, like all other executive orders, is that to get funding on this initiative, he will eventually have to ask congress for the necessary appropriations of funds. There will come a time when the president will be at the mercy of Congress to see to it that this program is funded.Common complaints against executive orders lie in the idea that to use them is simply a strategic move to draw attention to an issue rather than a real initiative. Some suggest that to pass legislation over the heads of Congress is to disregard the separation of powers spelled out in the constitution. In particular, this executive order is criticized for being used in a time of peace—most orders are advocated in a time of war, but as of recent time, presidents have taken to using orders to take initiatives rather than emergency directives. Critics argue that Obama knows that this legislation will soon rely on Congress for funding.Obama’s White House has chosen not to address Gay and Lesbian Rights advocacy with any executive orders. This is most likely due to it being such a “hot” issue right now. With a country very divided on the issue, to enact an executive order favoring either side of the issue would serve to segregate supporters of the other side of the issue and could hurt the president’s public approval. Taking such a large decision without going through Congress would be seen as unconstitutional.
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...
1. The majority party is given the right to redraw congressional districts every ten years at reapportionment after the census. They do so to ensure that their seats in the house will be safe in reelection based on the mapping instead of the public's approval rating.
2.Incumbency is no longer related to public approval. To be reelected, a congressman does not have to gain the approval of his or her public but simply fall in accordance to the districts redrawn every ten years and keep his party satisfied.
3. The solution to this problem lies with the ability to draw congressional districts with geographically factored algorithms done based on population distribution instead of manually drawn by the majority party.
4. The electoral college and gerrymandering share the similarity of being outdated systems which are no longer as helpful as they are hindering. Originally installed to help the growth of a developing nation, now both are exploited by politicians for personal gain and lead to an unfair representation of the public in congress and the White House.
5. No; in the same way that two wrongs do not make a right, the same can be said about gerrymandering assisting both parties. Rather than attempt to justify an extremely apparently outdated system, we should strive to abolish it and work toward a fairer representation of the public's needs and wants.
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?
2. To what extent is Sabato focused on the issues (platform) of the candidates?
3. Sabato refers to the “permanent presidential campaign.” What does this mean, and what are the implications for government?
4. Do you think that there is an advantage to being identified as an early leader in the presidential race? Why or why not?
1. In 2016, the media seems to be looking for a strong, energetic leader who is beloved by the people and has more advantages than disadvantages according to their “research” on the hopeful’s character and interactions with the people. According to Sabato, it is nearly the same for both parties. It differs only in that the Republican Party seems to be more invested in the search for their next candidate as they have more running and more detailed research on their candidates than the Democratic party, which is focused around the idea that Hillary Clinton will most likely run.
2. Sabato barely concerns himself with the actual platforms of the candidates and instead chooses to report on their qualities as politicians, both positive and negative, and any sort of misgivings they have so far had with the people or the media which might prove to hurt them.
3. The permanent presidential campaign is an idea which suggests that there is an ongoing relationship between the person holding office and his or her people; to maintain good relations with them, they can never truly be done campaigning. Their past will be scrutinized by the people, as well as their current behavior and future endeavors. This means that the president, even after being vetted and elected, must strive to keep the people fond of him. The president must be of completely noble aspirations to succeed in office.
4. To me, being identified as an early leader in the race is definitely a disadvantage. The media is a vicious thing; it seeks to take a nominee and heavily scrutinize them and try to break them and dig into their past and such. The more attention one receives from the media, the more likely they are to be victimized by it. I realize that extra attention from the media also gives them a leg ahead in the race, however I like to think that the media has no allies, so getting closer to them only leaves the candidate more exposed.
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.
1. Why are Democrats hopeful of a party realignment in Texas? How is this related to the concept of minority majority? With the influx of Hispanic immigration, the Democratic party is experiencing an increase in support in Texas, the new Hispanic citizens usually voting Democratic. As more Hispanics pour into Texas, the Party hopes to become the preferred political party in Texas. This demonstrates the power of minority majority; a once mostly-white Texas, which favored a Republican Party, is now subject to major political change just because there are (or might soon be) more Hispanics than whites in Texas. 2. What are the trends in party identification within the state of Texas? Hispanics are decidedly a Democratic group (49% : 27%), though less so than the Hispanic populations of other states. The white population is decidedly Republican (61%: 26%), more so than the white populations of other states. A minority of each ethnic group chooses to align themselves with as independent. 3. Why does Gallup suggest that the current situation is unlikely to result in party realignment in the near future? How is this related to the concept of political participation? Gallup suggests that political realignment is unlikely to happen, referencing the fact that in the past five years, the growth of the Hispanic Republican Party in Texas has grown more so than the Hispanic Democratic Party. The Hispanic population of Texas is mostly Democratic, however, the Republican faction of the Hispanic population is much more profound than those of other states. Furthermore, the “trajectory” of Hispanic political support is impossible to gauge or predict because though the Hispanics of Texas are mostly Democratic, not all Hispanics choose to participate in the political process. Regardless of a minority majority in population, the fact that more whites demonstrate political participation may mean a continuation of the Republican alignment in Texas. 4. What steps were taken to ensure a low sampling error in this poll? The sample is completely randomized between cellular and landline phones, ensuring no selection bias. The interviews are conducted in both Spanish and English to ensure unbiased responses. There are quotas on the number of cellphones and landlines dialed with other regional quotas. The responses are weighted according to more advanced statistics factors to remove the biases of volunteerism, selection, and nonresponse. Finally, they are reweighted to meet the demographic of the region, including ages, races, genders.
1. Conservatism and big business has been consistently favored in Roberts court decisions. This can be seen in his track record of siding more with conservatives vs liberals or can be observed in his entanglement with Obamacare in which he gave states the individual privilege to reject different aspects of Obamacare. 2. Precedent is using the interpretations of previous court decisions to come to conclusions for future court cases. The Roberts court acts widely on precedent rather than judement to support extremely conservative policy from previous cases. The effect is an ever growing conservative support which feeds on itself. 3. Much like with Congress, the president is faced with a supreme court comprised of conservatives where he, as a democrat, favors a more liberal policy. The result is the inability to gain traction in the supreme court. The president may either modify his interests to appease the court justices or may work to get the senate to approve the appointment of a more moderate justice. 4. Justice Kennedy can be considered the swing vote for he is, of all the judges, the most likely to sit on the fence. Not leaning one way or another, he can be swayed to vote one way or another depending on his judgment of the case itself rather than predisposed conservative or liberal sentiment or agendas. 5. The article seems to carry bias in favor of a conservative agenda. This is evident in that the article expresses favoritism for the Roberts court and deliberately discusses conservative ideals much more than it does the Obama administration or liberal policy in general. Even the subtext implies that the author sees Roberts as a positive figure in the judicial branch. "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. may work slowly, but he has a long-term strategy for putting his mark on the Supreme Court."
The NRA cannot directly prevent the appointment of Dr. Murphy but can (and is) encouraging citizens to show a lack of support for Murphy. In doing so, the citizens’ respective senators know that if they vote for the appointment of Murphy they will lose favor with their people so they are influenced to vote against it. The NRA is specifically against the nominee’s position on gun-control, namely how he is in favor of a ban on assault weapon sales to the public and other precautions that he wants to install. Senators’ greatest concern is that if they don’t bend to this tactic being used by the NRA, they may distance themselves from the public and not be reelected. This bears particularly true in states that are primarily anti-gun control.The president may appoint who he or she chooses fit for the office, but the senate can override and deny this appointment if they can get a 2/3 majority approval.After seeing many appointments be denied in the Senate, the White House may consider appointing more moderate candidates that won’t be subject to being attacked by the NRA. They may also choose to hold off on this appointment until after the midterm elections, when reelection is a less pressing issue and senators are less likely to be externally influenced. They may consider abandoning the candidate all-together if they know that the vote will not turn out in their favor.
All about the Electoral College. This original video from Disney Educational Productions tackles one of the most interesting elements of U.S. presidential el...
Matei Panturu's insight:
1. The Constitutional basis enlies in the idea that the founding fathers did not necessarily trust all of its people to participate in government. It also needed to balance out the power of states based on sizes.
2. The most common strategy is to rally the swing States, the undecided States which could turn the election. The safe States refer to the ones which are certainly going to maintain their voting trend and vote for the same party. Candidates don't invest time into campaigning In safe States for there is usually no way to turn a state
3. The decision is taken to the house of representatives to elect the president.
4. The electoral system was criticized after Bush won the electoral vote but not the popular.
5. It was a positive system for the time being but now that the nation has developed it may be time to switch to the popular vote. The entire state system should be remediated to be based on the individual and not the state.
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.
Historical events, as Gallup suggests, can mirror the changes in results but I believe that this does not necessarily mean they can explain them. Statistics teaches us that correlation does not imply causation. Though you can infer that it was repercussions from the events of 9/11 that skewed the data in some way or another, for example, it is a fallacy to say that this must be why the data appeared like this. Other issues of the times or just public tastes could have impacted the data as well.These results did not coincide with the depiction of liberalism and conservatism found in my text book; the book and my own natural understanding of the two schools of thought paint them to be polar opposites of one another. In saying that, I would naturally assume the differences in satisfaction rates, based on a particular issue, to be exponentially greater than they actually came out to be. It is surprising to me that there was only a ten point discrepancy between treatment of gays and lesbians in the nation. I would have assumed a much larger difference, as liberals and conservatives are supposed to have opposite thoughts.Public policy changes that are likely to be supported by each party are the ones in which the discrepancy between the satisfaction rates between the two are the smallest. In this case, it is likely that public policy change will soon be supported in regards to “the nation’s policy to reduce or control crime” and “the quality of public education” as the discrepancy between these two was only one percent.With a sampling error of four percent, that means that the surveyors are ninety five percent confident that a true sample of the population, which could not ever be realistically taken, would yield results within four percent of these. This only serves to bolster my newly formed images of what bipartisan politics truly looks like in a real setting, as explained in answer two. A four percent sampling error means that the results could be even closer together than they already were. Some may actually have no discrepancy between the two.
Sharing your scoops to your social media accounts is a must to distribute your curated content. Not only will it drive traffic and leads through your content, but it will help show your expertise with your followers.
How to integrate my topics' content to my website?
Integrating your curated content to your website or blog will allow you to increase your website visitors’ engagement, boost SEO and acquire new visitors. By redirecting your social media traffic to your website, Scoop.it will also help you generate more qualified traffic and leads from your curation work.
Distributing your curated content through a newsletter is a great way to nurture and engage your email subscribers will developing your traffic and visibility.
Creating engaging newsletters with your curated content is really easy.